in the Matter of D.W.
02-16-00468-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Juvenile D.W. was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a felony) and, after disposition, committed to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for an indeterminate term.
- D.W. was represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief asserting the appeal is frivolous after a diligent record review.
- The Anders brief complied with procedural requirements and the State did not file a responsive brief; D.W. did not file a pro se response.
- The court conducted an independent review of the record (as required after an Anders brief) and concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal, affirming the trial court’s judgment.
- Although the appeal was found frivolous, the court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw because the Juvenile Justice Code requires appointed counsel to continue representation until the case is terminated or a new attorney is appointed, and under In re P.M. the case was not terminated for that purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may withdraw after filing an Anders brief claiming the appeal is frivolous | Counsel: Anders brief complies; no nonfrivolous issues exist | State: no opposition; D.W.: no response | Court: appeal is frivolous but counsel may not withdraw because appointed counsel must continue representation under juvenile-code/P.M. reasoning |
| Whether an independent appellate review is required after an Anders brief | Counsel: implied compliance with Anders | — | Court: independent review required and performed |
| Whether record contains any arguable grounds to support appeal | Counsel: no arguable grounds exist | — | Court: independent review found nothing arguable; affirmed judgment |
| Whether filing Anders brief terminates appointed counsel’s obligation under juvenile representation rules | Counsel: sought withdrawal after Anders brief | Court/Statute: appointed counsel remains until case terminated or new counsel appointed | Court: denial of withdrawal consistent with In re P.M. and juvenile-code requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for counsel’s withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (court must independently review record before permitting counsel to withdraw)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requirement for independent appellate review after Anders brief)
- Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (same)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for identifying arguable grounds on appeal)
- In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016) (appointed counsel continues representation for purposes of supreme-court proceedings under family-code reasoning)