in the Matter of J.R.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00029-CV

In the MATTER OF J.R.

From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2005-JUV-01802 Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 3, 2008 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Pursuant to a plea bargain, J.R. pleaded true to the State’s petition alleging he committed the offense of possession of cocaine, one to four grams. The trial court followed the plea agreement and placed J.R. on probation for twelve months in his mother’s custody. The State subsequently filed four motions to modify disposition based on alleged violations of probation. With regard to the first three motions to modify, the trial court found the various allegations true and extended J.R.’s probation, but after the second motion ordered probation in the custody of the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer of Bexar County. J.R. subsequently pled true, without a plea agreement, to the allegations in the fourth motion to modify disposition, which is the subject of this appeal. The trial

04-08-00029-CV court revoked J.R.’s probation and committed him to the Texas Youth Commission. J.R. filed a notice of appeal.

J.R.’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which she asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (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.) (same). Counsel states she has provided the juvenile and his guardian copies of the brief and motion to withdraw and informed them of the juvenile’s right to review the record and file his own brief. See A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d at 360-61; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (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.). No pro se brief has been filed.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by J.R.’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

-2-