COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            This is an appeal from a disposition order placing A.R.M. in the Challenge Boot Camp Program. Affirmed.

            Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Although counsel presents a potential appellate issue, after a thorough analysis, she concludes there was no abuse of discretion, and no error that would require reversal. The State has filed a response to the Anders brief, also concluding that there are no bases for reversal of the trial court’s order.

            Appointed counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record, and demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has not exercised his right to file a pro se brief.

            Although a potential appellate issue has been raised, this Court may not conduct a review of the merits of that issue in the Anders context. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Our review is limited to: (1) whether the appeal is wholly frivolous, and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and found no reversible error; or (2) whether arguable grounds for appeal exist, and if so, remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.

            Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we agree with appointed counsel’s assessment that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. Further, we find nothing in the record that may arguably support the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

February 28, 2011

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.