in the Interest of D. J.G. a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                   COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
    FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
    ABATEMENT ORDER
    Appellate case name:           In the Interest of D.J.G., a Child
    Appellate case number:         01-22-00870-CV
    Trial court case number:       2021-01520J
    Trial court:                   315th District Court of Harris County
    Appellant, father, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order terminating his
    parental rights to his child, D.J.G. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel on appeal has filed a
    motion to withdraw from representing appellant and an Anders brief in which she concludes that
    “[b]ased on [her] professional evaluation of the record, . . . there are no arguable grounds for
    appeal and that [appellant’s] appeal is wholly frivolous.” See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    744 (1967); In re A.M., 
    495 S.W.3d 573
    , 582 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied).
    When we receive an Anders brief from an appellant’s appointed attorney who asserts that
    no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting
    our own review of the entire record. In re C.S., No. 01-16-00152-CV, 
    2016 WL 4408980
    , at *1
    (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 16, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). If we determine that
    arguable grounds for appeal exist, we abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to
    allow the appointed attorney to withdraw and for the trial court to appoint another attorney to
    present all arguable grounds for appeal. In re C.S., 
    2016 WL 4408980
    , at *1; see also In re
    Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (stating arguable ground for appeal
    is one that could “conceivably persuade the court”).
    Here, we have reviewed the appellate record and appointed counsel’s Anders brief and
    conclude that the appeal warrants further development by new appellate counsel on the following
    arguable grounds for appeal: whether the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support
    the trial court’s finding that termination of appellant’s parental rights was in the best interest of
    D.J.G. and whether the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s objections to certain exhibits
    admitted at trial.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(2); see also Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“After an attorney files a proper Anders brief (which
    should be filed with a request for withdrawal from the case) . . . , the Court of Appeals . . . must
    1
    New appellate counsel is not prevented from briefing any other arguable grounds of appeal.
    conduct its own investigation of the record to discover if there are arguable grounds. If grounds
    are deemed arguable, the Court of Appeals then must abate the appeal and remand the case to the
    trial court with orders to appoint other counsel to present those and any other grounds that might
    support the appeal.”). Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court
    with instructions to appoint new counsel to represent appellant on appeal and have a supplemental
    clerk’s record containing that appointment filed in this appeal with the Clerk of this Court no later
    than 10 days from the date of this order.
    Counsel’s appellant’s brief will be due 20 days from the date that counsel is appointed.
    See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4 (“Accelerated Appeals in Parental Termination and Child Protection
    Cases”), 38.6(a). Because this is a termination case, this Court is required to bring this appeal to
    final disposition within 180 days of November 22, 2022, the date the notice of appeal was filed in
    this proceeding, so far as reasonably possible. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2, reprinted in TEX.
    GOV’T. CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. F app. Accordingly, no extensions of time will be granted
    absent extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d). Counsel who agrees to handle
    this appeal should do so only if he or she can satisfy the briefing deadlines.
    The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket.
    It is so ORDERED.
    Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Julie Countiss_____
     Acting individually  Acting for the Court
    Date: ___January 10, 2023_____
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-22-00870-CV

Filed Date: 1/10/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/16/2023