In the Matter of J. E. A., Jr., a Juvenile Appeal from 25th District Court of Gonzales County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00343-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN THE MATTER OF J.E.A. JR., A JUVENILE On appeal from the 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez After a jury trial, appellant J.E.A. Jr., a juvenile, was adjudged to have engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the second degree felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 51.03(a)(1) (West, Westlaw through 2017 R.S.) (defining delinquent conduct as conduct that violates a Texas penal law punishable by imprisonment); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.33 (West, Westlaw through 2017 R.S.) (providing that a second degree felony is punishable by imprisonment); see also TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West, Westlaw through 2017 R.S.). Thereafter, the trial court entered an order committing J.E.A. to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department on an indeterminate sentence. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.0411(c)(1) (West, Westlaw through 2017 R.S.). We affirm. I. ANDERS BRIEF J.E.A.’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); see also In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (applying the procedures enumerated in Anders to juvenile appeals). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding that an Anders brief need not specifically advance arguable points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), J.E.A.’s appointed counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on J.E.A., and (3) informed J.E.A. of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n. 3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n. 23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and J.E.A. has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 2 II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (observing that, due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, J.E.A.’s counsel has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for J.E.A. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that “[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to J.E.A. and to advise him of his right to file a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re 3 Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n. 35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). /s/ Rogelio Valdez ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice Delivered and filed the 29th day of June, 2017. 4
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.
