In the Matter of E. T.--Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-01-00411-CV In the Matter of E.T. FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-16,230, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING On May 29, 2001, the State filed a motion to modify disposition alleging that E.T. violated the terms of his probation. On June 6, the district court, sitting as a juvenile court, held a hearing on the State s modification motion and ruled that E.T. violated the terms of his probation and engaged in delinquent conduct. The court conducted a disposition hearing and committed E.T. to the Texas Youth Commission. E.T. appealed. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ยง 56.01(c)(1)(C) (West Supp. 2002). E.T. s appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief asserting that the appeal is frivolous. The brief complies with the requirements for such briefs discussed in In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1998); and more generally, in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that he has diligently examined the record and researched the law applicable to the facts and issues in the case. Counsel s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no meritorious errors to be advanced. A copy of counsel s brief was delivered to E.T. and to his guardian, and they were advised of their right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. A pro se brief was not filed. We have independently reviewed the record and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. We grant counsel s motion to withdraw from the case and affirm the juvenile court s order modifying the probation judgment of delinquency and the court s order modifying the probation disposition to a disposition of commitment to the Texas Youth Commission. Lee Yeakel, Justice Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel Affirmed Filed: April 18, 2002 Do Not Publish 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
