In the Matter of A. K., a juvenile--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Angelina County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-11-00280-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN THE MATTER § APPEAL FROM THE OF A.K., § COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 A JUVENILE § ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM A.K., a juvenile, appeals the trial court=s adjudication order placing her on intensive supervision probation for delinquent conduct. Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm. BACKGROUND On August 12, 2011, the State filed its Original Adjudication Petition alleging that Appellant engaged in delinquent conduct by committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against her mother. Following an adjudication hearing, the trial court found that Appellant engaged in delinquent conduct as alleged and placed Appellant on intensive supervision probation. Thereafter, Appellant reconciled with her mother and desired to be again placed in her mother s home. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant=s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant=s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant=s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant=s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. CONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant=s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant=s counsel=s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed. As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise her of her right to file a petition for review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Supreme Court, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for review on her behalf or she must file a petition for review pro se. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 56.01(a) (West Supp. 2012). Any petition for review must be filed within forty-five days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 53.7(a). Any petition for review must be filed with the Texas Supreme Court clerk. See id. Any petition for review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 53.2. Opinion delivered August 15, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) 1 Counsel for Appellant demonstrates through an exhibit appended to his brief that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure has been filed. 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT AUGUST 15, 2012 NO. 12-11-00280-CV IN THE MATTER OF A.K., A JUVENILE Appeal from the County Court at Law #2 of Angelina County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. JV-3889) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant=s counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. 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.
