In the Matter of R.D.D. Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Randall County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-22-00054-CV IN THE MATTER OF R.D.D., APPELLANT On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 7215J, Honorable James W. Anderson, Presiding August 29, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. R.D.D., a juvenile, pleaded true to the State’s allegation that he had engaged in delinquent conduct based on a charge of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. The trial court found that R.D.D. had engaged in delinquent conduct and committed him into the care, custody, and control of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for an indeterminate period of time, not to exceed R.D.D.’s nineteenth birthday. R.D.D.’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, supported by an Anders brief in which he asserts that he has reviewed the record and believes the appeal is without merit.1 We affirm the trial court’s judgment. In his brief, counsel for R.D.D. states that, after his thorough review of the record, he has concluded that an appeal of the disposition order is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (extending Anders procedures to appeals from civil juvenile delinquency adjudications). Counsel certifies he served R.D.D. and his mother a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief and advised them of their right to review the record and file a pro se response. This Court has also notified both R.D.D. and his mother of the opportunity to respond to counsel’s motion and brief. See In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d 359, 360–61 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (per curiam). No response has been filed. The State has not filed a brief. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files an Anders brief, this Court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). When analyzing whether any grounds for appeal exist, we consider the record, the Anders brief, and any responses filed. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We have carefully examined the record and counsel’s brief to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal but, like counsel, we have found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 2 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.2 Judy C. Parker Justice We take no action on counsel’s motion to withdraw. We call counsel’s attention to the continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings, which may include the filing of a petition for review. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam); In re A.H., 530 S.W.3d 715, 716– 17 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.) (explaining why Anders and In re P.M. apply to an appeal from an order committing a juvenile to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department). 2 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.
