in the Interest of R.C., J.C., and E.C., Children ( 2023 )

Opinion filed January 12, 2023
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-22-00239-CV
__________
IN THE INTEREST OF R.C., J.C., AND E.C., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 35th District Court
Brown County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CV2105176
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the
parental rights of R.C., J.C., and E.C.’s father. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001
(West 2022). The father filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a
supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record
and applicable law and concludes that the appeal presents no arguable issues and is
therefore frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light of a holding by the
Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature”
if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In
re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “appointed
counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the
standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28.
Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the
motion to withdraw. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel also provided Appellant with (1) a form motion for
pro se access to the appellate record and (2) the mailing address of this court should
he desire to file the motion for pro se access. Counsel also informed Appellant of
his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. We
conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman,
and Kelly.
We note that Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders
brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal is
frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motion to withdraw that was
filed by Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.
Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial
court’s order of termination.
PER CURIAM
January 12, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
2