In re A.L.H

From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 95-JUV-01106 Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding OPINION ON INTERLOCUTORY ORDER Counsel for A.L.H. filed a brief and motion to withdraw asserting there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Before we can address the merits of A.L.H.'s appeal, we must decide whether the procedures of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), apply to an appeal from an adjudication of delinquency. The Anders process balances a criminal defendant's constitutional right to counsel with a lawyer's ethical duty not to bring frivolous appeals. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 84-85 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Under this procedure, if appointed counsel finds the appeal frivolous, counsel must file a motion to withdraw and a brief explaining why the appeal lacks merit. Id. at 85. The appellant may also file a pro se brief. Id. at 86. The appellate court then conducts its own review of the appellate record and, if the appeal has merit, orders the appointment of new counsel, thereby protecting the defendant's right to counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).