NO. 12-07-00013-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
§ APPEAL FROM THE 2ND
IN THE MATTER OF J.L.M.,
§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
A JUVENILE
§ CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
J.L.M., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s order transferring him to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (“TDCJ”) to complete his ten year determinate sentence for delinquent conduct. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
Background
On December 30, 2004, the State filed its Second Amended Petition for Determinate Sentencing alleging that Appellant engaged in delinquent conduct by, among other things, committing the offenses of aggravated assault and injury to a child. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations in the State’s petition. Following an adjudication hearing, the trial court found that Appellant engaged in delinquent conduct as alleged and further found that Appellant used a deadly weapon in the commission of the aggravated assault. The trial court committed Appellant to the Texas Youth Commission with a possible transfer to TDCJ for a determinate sentence of ten years.
On November 1, 2006, the State filed a motion requesting a hearing on the transfer of Appellant to TDCJ to complete his determinate sentence. The trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion on November 13, 2006. Ultimately, the court ordered Appellant transferred to TDCJ to serve the remainder of his sentence. This appeal followed.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant’s counsel states that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. She further relates that she is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.
Conclusion
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with our consideration of the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Opinion delivered January 31, 2008.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(PUBLISH)
1 Counsel for Appellant certified in Appellant’s brief that she provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.