in the Interest of M.J.L., a Child ( 2012 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00132-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M.J.L., a Child
From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-02-27955-CV
The Honorable Cathy O. Morris, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 3, 2012
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Appellant M.V. 1 appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parent-child relationship
with her daughter M.J.L. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to
withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating there are
no arguable grounds to be advanced and concluding the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-
CV, 2003 WL 21157944, *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying Anders
procedure to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL
22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant was
1
To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the mother and child by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 109.002(d) (West 2011); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.
04-12-00132-CV
provided a copy of the brief and informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief.
See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, July 23, 1997, no pet.); In
re R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. In response, appellant filed a pro se letter brief, which
primarily complains about her inability to file a full brief on the merits due to her “rudimentary
command” of the English language. She also generally asserts her desire to be reunited with her
daughter once she is released from incarceration.
When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed, the court has two options.
In re Guardianship of Hahn, 276 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.).
Upon reviewing the entire record, we may determine: (1) the appeal is without merit and issue an
opinion explaining that there is no reversible error, or (2) there are arguable grounds for appeal
and remand the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Id.; see
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals
may address merits of issues raised by pro se only after any arguable grounds have been briefed
by new counsel). Here, we have carefully reviewed the entire appellate record, and with great
deference to appellant’s language skills, we conclude there are no arguable grounds for appeal,
there is no reversible error, and the appeal is without merit. See id. Specifically, we hold there
are no meritorious issues that might be raised, even if appellant were provided an interpreter on
appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s order.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
-2-