In the Matter of M.L. Appeal from 323rd District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-18-00272-CV ___________________________ IN THE MATTER OF M.L. On Appeal from the 323rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 323-105801-17 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a juvenile court’s judgment adjudicating M.L. delinquent and ordering probation. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 54.03, 54.04, 56.01; Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11(a)(2), 22.021(a)(2)(B). M.L.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion, in which he states that he has reviewed the record and believes the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (holding that Anders procedures apply to juvenile appeals). Appellate counsel notified M.L. of the right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. This court also notified both M.L. and his father of the right to file a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have not received any response. The State declined to file a brief. When an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must independently examine the record to see if there is any arguable ground that may be raised on the appellant’s behalf. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re A.H., 530 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.). 2 When determining whether a ground for appeal exists, we consider the record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); A.H., 530 S.W.3d at 717. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); A.H., 530 S.W.3d at 717. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. However, for the reasons expressed in In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 26–28, 26 n.5 (Tex. 2016), and A.H., 530 S.W.3d at 717, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. /s/ Dana Womack Dana Womack Justice Delivered: August 8, 2019 3
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.
