the Texas Juvenile Justice Department after previously adjudicating him delinquent for committing the felony offense of assault on a public servant. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.03 (West 2014), § 54.04 (West Supp. 2016); Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.01(a)(1), (b)(1) (West Supp. 2016). Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion, in which he states that he has reviewed the record and believes the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). Appellate counsel notified appellant’s mother
holding that anders procedures apply to juvenile appeals holding that various fifth and sixth amendment protections apply to juvenile proceedings holding parratt does not apply where an officer acts pursuant to established procedures holding doctrine of mootness does not apply to appeals from involuntary commitments holding rule 38 applies to frivolous criminal appeals as well as civil appeals