In the Matter of T.H. Appeal from 315th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 11, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-15-00926-CV NO. 14-15-00927-CV IN THE MATTER OF T.H. On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 2015-02522J & 2015-02523J MEMORANDUM OPINION The State filed a petition alleging delinquent conduct against appellant, a juvenile, charging him, in two counts, with conduct in violation of section 29.03 of the Texas Penal Code, aggravated robbery. The State filed a motion requesting that the juvenile district court waive its jurisdiction and transfer the cases to the criminal district court. After a hearing, the juvenile court signed an order waiving jurisdiction. Appellant appeals the juvenile court’s order waiving jurisdiction and certifying appellant to be tried as an adult. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and explaining why there are no arguable grounds of error on appeal. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Anders doctrine also applies in juvenile matters. See In Re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (extending Anders procedures to juvenile delinquency proceedings based, in part, on quasi-criminal nature of proceedings). Copies of counsel’s brief were delivered to appellant and to his mother, and both were advised that appellant has the right to file a pro se brief. More than thirty days have elapsed and no pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief thoroughly and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Wise. 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.
