In the Matter of G.C.--Appeal from 289th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00330-CV
IN THE MATTER OF G. C.
Appellant
From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1998-JUV-00482
Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 7, 2001

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Pursuant to a plea agreement, G.C. received a five year determinate sentence for delinquent conduct based on aggravated robbery and was remanded to the custody of the Texas Youth Commission. After G.C. served twenty two months of his sentence, TYC requested that G.C. be transferred to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (TDCJ). Following a hearing, the trial court granted TYC's request and transferred G.C. to TDCJ. G.C.'s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a brief in which counsel concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw.

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). Specifically, counsel states G.C. was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw (1) and was further informed of his right to review the record (2)and file his own brief if he wished. In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998); In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d 359, 360-61 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.). G.C. has not done so.

We reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by G.C.'s counsel. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1. Ordinarily, the Anders procedure as applied in juvenile cases requires counsel to certify that the brief and motion to withdraw, along with instructions regarding the right to review the record and file a pro se brief, were sent to both the juvenile and the parent or guardian. In this case, G.C. reached the age of eighteen prior to the date the brief and motion were filed in this court, and is therefore capable of representing his own interests.

2. Counsel also detailed the procedure for obtaining the record. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).