Twelfth Court of Appeals Affirms Juvenile Transfer to TDCJ and Defines Counsel’s Ongoing Duty in Anders Appeals

In the Matter of F.M., 12-25-00174-CV, February 18, 2026.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Angelina County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court’s order transferring a juvenile from the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to serve the remainder of an 18-year determinate sentence. The court simultaneously denied appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding that the statutory right to counsel in juvenile proceedings extends through the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court, even where the appeal is deemed frivolous under Anders v. California.

Relevance to Family Law

While this case arises from a juvenile delinquency transfer, its procedural holding is a direct extension of Texas Supreme Court precedent regarding the termination of parental rights. Family law litigators handling Title 5 cases must recognize that the “sticky” nature of court-appointed representation—established in In re P.M.—applies with equal force to juvenile matters. This decision reinforces that an Anders brief does not provide an immediate exit for appointed counsel; the duty of representation persists through the petition for review stage in Austin, effectively merging the standards for “quasi-criminal” juvenile proceedings with the highest stakes of family law litigation.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

F.M. was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated robbery and sentenced to an 18-year determinate sentence. As his 19th birthday approached, the State sought his transfer from the TJJD to the TDCJ. During the evidentiary hearing, testimony revealed a dual-track history: while F.M. had completed his high school diploma and vocational certifications, his behavioral record was marred by 71 incidents, including nine major rule violations involving assault and sexual misconduct. He had been removed from violent offender treatment programs due to his behavior and only recently readmitted. A psychological evaluation recommended transfer to the TDCJ, noting that F.M.’s risk had not been sufficiently reduced for community release. F.M. testified on his own behalf, acknowledging his past distractions but arguing that his recent behavior showed a genuine commitment to rehabilitation. The trial court ultimately determined that F.M. remained in need of rehabilitation and that the community’s welfare necessitated a transfer to the TDCJ.

Issues Decided

The court considered two primary issues: (1) whether the record supported the trial court’s order transferring the juvenile to the TDCJ to complete his determinate sentence, and (2) whether appointed counsel may withdraw after filing an Anders brief in a juvenile appeal.

Rules Applied

The court applied the Anders v. California framework, which allows counsel to file a brief stating an appeal is frivolous if a diligent review of the record reveals no arguable grounds for reversal. In determining the scope of the right to counsel, the court relied on the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in In re P.M., which interprets the statutory right to counsel in parental termination and juvenile matters as extending through all proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court. Additionally, the court cited In re D.A.S. to confirm the applicability of Anders procedures to juvenile delinquency appeals.

Application

In applying the Anders standard, the Twelfth Court conducted an independent review of the record, including the TJJD summary report and the testimony regarding F.M.’s behavioral infractions. The court found that the evidence of F.M.’s major rule violations and his failure to complete necessary treatment programs provided a sound basis for the trial court’s exercise of discretion. Consequently, the court agreed with counsel that the appeal was wholly frivolous.

However, the application of the law regarding counsel’s motion to withdraw required a different result. The court looked to the intersection of the Texas Family Code and the right to counsel. It reasoned that because juvenile transfer proceedings involve significant liberty interests—analogous to the fundamental rights at stake in parental termination cases—the protections of In re P.M. must apply. The court concluded that counsel’s obligation to the client is not discharged by the mere filing of a frivolousness brief in the court of appeals; rather, the attorney must remain appointed to assist the client in seeking review from the state’s highest court if they so choose.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s transfer order, finding no reversible error in the determination that F.M. should be transferred to the TDCJ.

In a separate and significant holding, the court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw. The court held that the right to counsel in juvenile matters is not exhausted at the intermediate appellate level. If the appellant desires to file a petition for review, counsel must remain appointed and is required to file a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court that satisfies the Anders standards.

Practical Application

This case serves as a critical reminder for practitioners that the “Anders Exit” is largely a myth in appointed cases under the Family Code. Whether you are representing a parent in a termination suit or a minor in a juvenile transfer, you must budget for the possibility of a “frivolous” petition for review. If the court of appeals affirms and you have filed an Anders brief, you cannot simply walk away; you must consult with the client, advise them of their right to seek further review, and—if requested—draft and file the petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.

Checklists

Managing the Anders Process in Appointed Cases

• Initial Record Review
  • Conduct a “diligent” review of the entire clerk’s and reporter’s records.
  • Identify every potential point of error (e.g., evidentiary rulings, statutory compliance).
  • Document why each potential point is not “arguable” under current precedent.
• Client Communication
  • Provide the client with a copy of the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw.
  • Advise the client in writing of their right to file a pro se response.
  • Ensure the client has a means to access the appellate record (e.g., provide a copy or a motion for access).
• Post-Opinion Obligations
  • Immediately inform the client of the court of appeals’ decision.
  • Advise the client of the right to file a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.
  • Prepare to file a “P.M. compliant” petition for review if the client wishes to proceed.

Avoiding Reversal in Juvenile Transfer Hearings

• Evidence of Rehabilitation Failure
  • Document all behavioral incidents and rule violations during TJJD tenure.
  • Highlight any removals from mandatory treatment programs (e.g., Capital Offender programs).
  • Secure psychological evaluations that specifically address “community risk” versus “rehabilitative progress.”
• Procedural Compliance
  • Ensure the TJJD summary report is properly admitted into evidence.
  • Verify that the transfer hearing occurs within the statutory timeframe relative to the juvenile’s age.

Citation

In the Matter of F.M., No. 12-25-00174-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 18, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

View the full opinion here.

~~d7b35777-4893-4901-8f73-47505fba90d0~~