YEAR 2005 CASE SUMMARIES

By
The Honorable Pat Garza
Associate Judge
386th District Court
San Antonio, Texas

2005 Summaries     2004 Summaries     2003 Summaries     2002 Summaries     2001 Summaries     2000 Summaries     1999 Summaries

The procedures established in Anders apply to juvenile appeals. [In the Matter of A.R.B.]( 05-4-7)

On August 31, 2005, the El Paso Court held that the procedures established in Anders apply to juvenile appeals.

05-4-7. In the Matter of A.R.B., __S.W.3d __, No. 08-04-00137-CV, 2005 Tex.App.Lexis 7162 (Tex.App.— El Paso, 8/31/05).

Facts: Appellant was adjudicated guilty of delinquent conduct based on delivering and selling marijuana and was placed on probation. Appellant admitted that she left the monitoring premises without permission on two occasions, used marijuana, and associated with a negative peer. Appellant was placed under home detention. Her probation officer later sent a letter to the trial court that appellant had been violating the home detention order and associating with a negative peer. Following disposition, the court found that appellant should be placed on supervised probation outside her home. The court agreed with counsel that the appeal was wholly frivolous and without merit.

Held: Affirmed.

Opinion: Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by advancing one contention which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). The procedures established in Anders apply to juvenile appeals. In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1148 (Tex. 1998).

A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to A.R.B., and she has been advised of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A further discussion of the arguable ground advanced in counsel's brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Conclusion: The judgment is affirmed.

DISCLAIMER    I    CONTACT US