In the Matter of A. A., Jr. v. the State of Texas

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed August 29, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00071-CV

IN THE MATTER OF A.A., JR., A Juvenile

On Appeal from the 451st Judicial District Court
Kendall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 22-001-JV

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Goldstein
A.A., Jr. appeals the trial court’s order transferring him from the Texas

Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

(TDCJ).1 A.A. was adjudicated delinquent after entering a plea of true on one count

of aggravated robbery and was given a twenty-year determinate sentence, with the

possibility of a transfer to TDCJ. Before A.A. turned nineteen, the trial court

conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether A.A. should be transferred

to TDCJ to serve the remainder of his sentence. Following the hearing, the trial

1
The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Fourth Court of Appeals. See
Misc. Docket No. 23-9109 (Tex. Dec.5, 2023) (docket equalization order). Accordingly, we apply
the Fourth Court of Appeals’ precedent to the extent required by Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 41.3.
court ordered A.A. to be transferred. A.A.’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal on

A.A.’s behalf and his appointed appellate counsel has since filed a brief, stating that

in his professional opinion the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable

grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Anders procedures are appropriate in appeals from juvenile transfer hearings.

See In Re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (Because

Anders protects juveniles’ statutory right to counsel on appeal, we hold the

procedures enumerated in Anders apply to juvenile appeals); Matter of C.S., No. 05-

23-00951-CV, 2024 WL 2075841, at * 1 (Tex. App—Dallas May 9, 2024, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from juvenile transfer order); In

re R.M., III, No. 13-09-00316-CV, 2010 WL 467414, at *1 (Tex. App—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg Feb. 11, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); In re T.H., 2001 WL

246816, at * 1 (Tex. App—San Antonio Mar. 14, 2001, no pet.) (same). An attorney

has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal. In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Under the Anders procedure, if

appointed counsel finds the appeal frivolous, counsel must file a brief explaining

why the appeal lacks merit. Anders, 386 U.S. 744-45; Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 407;

D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d at 297.

–2–
We provided A.A. with a copy of the Anders brief and advised him of his

right to examine the record and file his own response.2 To date, A.A. has not

requested the record nor has he filed a response.

In his brief, A.A.’s counsel demonstrated that he reviewed the record and

concluded the appeal was without merit and frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

He states that in his professional opinion no arguable grounds for reversal exist and

that any appeal would therefore lack merit. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the

minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id.;

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406–07. We have independently reviewed the record and

counsel’s brief, and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel. A court-

appointed attorney’s duties to a client in a juvenile case continue through the filing

of a petition for review, and a motion to withdraw may be premature unless good

cause is shown. See Matter of T.M., 583 S.W.3d 836, 838 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019,

no pet.) (extending In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) to Anders

appeals in juvenile cases); Matter of K.A.E., 647 S.W.3d 791, 792 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2022, no pet.) (same); In re A.H., 530 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth 2017, no pet.) (same). Counsel has not shown good cause for withdrawing

2
A.A.. is over the age of eighteen and able to file a pro se response in this appeal.
–3–
from his representation of A.A., and, as a result, his obligations have not been

discharged. See T.M., 583 S.W.3d at 838. If A.A., after consulting with counsel,

desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas

Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.”

See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s request to

withdraw.

We affirm the trial court’s transfer order.

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
JUSTICE

240071F.P05

–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

IN THE MATTER OF A. A., JR., On Appeal from the 451st Judicial
Appellant District Court, Kendall County,
Texas
No. 05-24-00071-CV Trial Court Cause No. 22-001-JV.
Opinion delivered by Justice
Goldstein. Justices Reichek and
Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s transfer
order is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered August 29, 2024

–5–