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

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed December 9, 2024

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 ON REHEARING
Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Goldstein
On September 6, 2024, A.A., Jr., filed a pro se motion to access the appellate

record.1 On the Court’s own motion, we withdrew our opinion of August 29, 2024,

and vacated the Court’s judgment of that date. This is now the opinion of the Court.

A.A. appeals the trial court’s order transferring him from the Texas Juvenile

Justice Department (TJJD) to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ).2

1
By order dated September 13, 2024, we granted appellant’s September 6, 2024, motion to access the
appellate record and ordered the Clerk of the Court to mail A.A. a copy of the appellate record. We further
ordered appellant, now over the age of eighteen, to file his pro se response to the June 20, 2024, Anders
brief no later than November 1, 2024, and ordered this case to be resubmitted without oral argument on
November 21, 2024. Appellant did not file a pro se response and has not further communicated with the
Court.
2
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
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

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 P.L.C., 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,

the Fourth Court of Appeals’ precedent to the extent required by Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 41.3.
–2–
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.

As A.A. is legally able to file a pro se response and failed to do so, we rely on

Appellant’s counsel’s brief. 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

–3–
Worth 2017, no pet.) (same). Counsel has not shown good cause for withdrawing

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//
240071f.p05 BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
JUSTICE

–4–
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 this 9th day of December, 2024.

–5–