OPINION The lower court found J.A.C., the juvenile Appellant in this proceeding, had engaged in the delinquent conduct of entering a habitation and committing and attempting to commit theft, in violation of Section 30.02(c)(2) of the Texas Penal Code. His counsel filed a notice of appeal from that determination, but later filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Following several hearings below on whether Appellant ever actually wanted to appeal in the first place, and whether he has received effective assistance of counsel, new counsel was appointed who has filed an Anders brief. We affirm. FACTUAL SUMMARY Appellant was indicted for the delinquent conduct of Burglary of Habitation, a second-degree felony. Both Appellant and the State waived the right to be heard by a District Judge and opted for transfer to a Juvenile Court Referee. On November 29, 2018, the Referee admonished Appellant and provided a detailed explanation of the jury trial procedure. Appellant acknowledged he understood his rights and waived a jury trial. Appellant signed a “Waiver, Stipulation, and Admission” form wherein he waived the right to a jury trial, stipulated that the State’s attorney could summarize the evidence that would have been submitted at trial, and admitted to the allegations against him.[1] He then pleaded true to the violation the State alleged. The Referee found Appellant engaged in delinquent conduct based on the pleadings on file, the plea of true, and the finding of true. Prior to the disposition hearing, however, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his stipulation and a motion for a new trial. In the motion, Appellant challenged the factual and legal sufficiency to support the determination. The Referee held a hearing, at which Appellant also claimed that newly discovered evidence undermined the voluntariness of the stipulation he signed.[2] The Referee denied the motion and found Appellant’s acknowledgement was voluntary. The Referee placed Appellant on probation until his 18th birthday under the terms and conditions of supervised probation.[3] FRIVOLOUS APPEAL Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (“In Texas, 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.”); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel has notified the Court in writing of his motion to withdraw but not delivered a copy of counsel’s brief to Appellant. Counsel submits to the Court that Appellant and Appellant’s mother were not found after hiring an investigator to locate them. Based on the record, Appellant was advised of his right to appeal[4] and was provided ample opportunity to appeal by this Court. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief. After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California. II. CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment. JEFF ALLEY, Justice June 7, 2021 Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
