In the Matter of F.C.M.--Appeal from 289th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-07-00827-CV In the MATTER OF F.C.M. From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007-JUV-02114 Honorable, Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 18, 2008 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, F.C.M. pleaded true to the State s petition alleging he committed the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court followed the plea agreement by taking into consideration five other delinquency cases and imposing a five-year determinate sentence. F.C.M. s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he asserts the appeal should be dismissed or, alternatively, there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Because the trial court followed the plea bargain, F.C.M. could appeal only if the trial court granted permission. TEX . FAM . CODE ANN . ยง 56.01(n) (Vernon 2002). The trial court s 04-07-00827-CV statements to F.C.M. regarding appeal are ambiguous and arguably constitute a grant of permission to appeal. Accordingly, we will not dismiss the 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 F.C.M. s counsel and affirm the trial court s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 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.). Steven C. Hilbig, Justice -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.
