NUMBER 13-01-403-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                       CORPUS CHRISTIBEDINBURG

                      IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.M., A JUVENILE             

                   On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

                                 of Calhoun County, Texas.

                                   O P I N I O N

          Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Castillo

                                   Opinion by Justice Yañez

Appellant, M.A.M., appeals a trial court order committing him to the Texas Youth Commission for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed his twenty-first birthday.  We affirm.

On March 15, 2001, appellant was placed on a twelve-month probation for possession of marijuana.  Two weeks later, a disposition hearing was held and the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant did engage in delinquent conduct, was in need of rehabilitation and that the protection of the public and the appellant required that disposition to be made.  The court then ordered appellant committed to the Texas Youth Commission in accordance with chapter 61 of the Texas Human Resources Code and   section 54.04 of the Texas Family Code.^[1]  Appellant had previously been adjudicated and placed on one year probation on December 1, 1998, for felony criminal mischief under section 28.03(a) of the Texas Penal Code, thus providing  the basis for a sentence to the Texas Youth Commission.^[2]

Appellant=s court appointed attorney has filed a brief in which he has concluded that this appeal has no meritorious issues to bring forward for review.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation of why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal.  Id.; see Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and Lindsey v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1995, no pet.).

Counsel states in his brief that he has served a copy of his brief on appellant and he has advised him by letter of his opinion that the appeal is without merit but that appellant has the right to review the record and file a pro se brief.  To date, no pro se brief has been filed.

In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), the Supreme Court discussed the responsibilities of an appellate court upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief.  The court stated:  Aonce the appellate court receives this brief, it must then itself conduct >a full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.= @  Id.  (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).  This we have done and we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                   LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

Justice

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

29th day of August, 2002.