in the Matter of S.C.N.F.

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00683-CV

IN THE MATTER OF S.C.N.F.

From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009-JUV-00357 Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 11, 2011

AFFIRMED

Appellant S.C.N.F. was adjudicated delinquent of misdemeanor assault-bodily injury and placed on twelve months probation for her offense. In June 2009, the State filed a motion to modify S.C.N.F.’s disposition after she violated the conditions of her probation. The trial court extended S.C.N.F.’s probation following a plea of true in July 2009. After S.C.N.F. violated the terms of her probation yet another time, the State filed a second motion to modify S.C.N.F.’s disposition. S.C.N.F. subsequently pleaded true to violating the conditions of her probation, and the trial court extended S.C.N.F.’s probation and placed her in the custody of the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer for purposes of long-term residential placement. This appeal followed. We affirm.

04-10-00683-CV

S.C.N.F.’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (applying Anders procedure to juvenile proceedings); In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d 359, 360-61 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (same). Counsel provided S.C.N.F. and her parents with a copy of the brief and informed them of S.C.N.F.’s right to review the record and file her own brief. See In re 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 was filed.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

-2-