Opinion filed June 8, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-06-00104-CV

                                                    __________

                                          IN THE MATTER OF J.P.

                                         On Appeal from the 420th District Court

                                                   Nacogdoches County, Texas

                                             Trial Court Cause No. J01479-2005

                                            M E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from an order of detention.  On November 3, 2005, J.P. was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the offense of burglary of a building and theft and was  placed on probation for one year.  On February 7, 2006, the State filed a motion to modify disposition alleging that J.P. violated the terms and conditions of his probation.  After a hearing, the trial court determined that it was in the best interest of J.P. and of the community that J.P. be placed in the custody of the county juvenile detention facility until his transfer to the Texas Youth Commission.  We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw.  The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief.  A response has not been filed.  Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).^[1]

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

June 8, 2006

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.