in the Interest of D.A.G., R.G., Jr., J.X.G., and S.A.G ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    May 3, 2017
    No. 04-17-00020-CV
    IN THE INTEREST OF D.A.G., R.G., JR., J.X.G., AND S.A.G,
    From the 112th Judicial District Court, Sutton County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 6066
    Honorable Pedro Gomez, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    This is an accelerated appeal involving the termination of parental rights. Appellant’s
    court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on
    appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed
    appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, provided appellant with a form
    for requesting the record, and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See
    Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 
    954 S.W.2d 83
    (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 
    924 S.W.2d 176
    , 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—
    San Antonio 1996, no pet.) see also In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 
    2003 WL 21157944
    , at * 4
    (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from
    termination of parental rights). To date, appellant has not filed the form provided by his counsel.
    If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before June 2,
    2017. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than
    twenty days after appellant=s pro se brief is filed in this court.
    We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance
    pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80-82 (1988) (holding that
    motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record
    to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State,
    
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).
    We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his
    appointed counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.
    _________________________________
    Marialyn Barnard, Justice
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
    court on this 3rd day of May, 2017.
    ___________________________________
    Keith E. Hottle
    Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-17-00020-CV

Filed Date: 5/3/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/5/2017