Opinion
No. 04-16-00343-CV
05-10-2017
In the MATTER OF B.S.P.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. CM2012JUV01933
Honorable Daphne Previti Austin, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice AFFIRMED
Appellant B.S.P. was charged with delinquent conduct for allegedly committing aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen on or about June 15, 2012. The State sought a determinate sentence, and the jury found B.S.P. had engaged in delinquent conduct. B.S.P. waived the right to disposition by a jury, and the juvenile court placed B.S.P. on probation for a period of six years. About one month prior to B.S.P.'s nineteenth birthday, the State moved to transfer B.S.P.'s determinate sentence probation to an appropriate district court. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.051 (West Supp. 2016); In re T.A., No. 04-12-00645-CV, 2013 WL 5570425, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 9, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). On B.S.P.'s birthday, the probation was transferred to an appropriate district court.
About sixteen months later, the State moved to revoke B.S.P.'s community supervision (adult probation) based on the allegations that B.S.P. violated at least three of the community supervision conditions. At the revocation hearing, B.S.P.'s probation officer, grandmother, and mother testified. B.S.P. also testified and pled true to violating three probation conditions. The State waived the other allegations and moved for adjudication, revocation, and a six-year sentence. The trial court found the allegations true and assessed punishment at confinement for six years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal ensued.
B.S.P.'s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which counsel asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2. The brief meets the applicable requirements. E.g., Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); see also In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (Anders procedures apply to appeals from juvenile delinquency adjudications); In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d 359, 360 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (per curiam) (same). Counsel provided B.S.P. and B.S.P.'s mother with copies of the brief and counsel's motion to withdraw, and informed both of B.S.P.'s right to review the record and file a pro se brief. See In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d at 360-61. Counsel also provided B.S.P. and B.S.P.'s mother with a motion for pro se access to the appellate record and instructions for filing the motion, see Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, and counsel informed both of B.S.P.'s right to seek discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals if the court of appeals finds the appeal frivolous. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). No pro se brief has been filed.
After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice