in the Interest of G.P., a Child ( 2016 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-16-00068-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF G.P., A CHILD
From the 74th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-4864-3
ORDER
On April 22, 2016, Morris P., Appellant, filed a brief with this Court which appears
to be pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 493 (1967). The
Court notes, however, that the brief and its appendix are not in compliance with Rule 9.8,
which requires the use of an alias in all papers, except docketing statements, submitted
to this Court, including the appendix, when identifying the child in an appeal arising out
of a parental-rights termination case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(1). In order to protect the
identity of the child, the Court orders Morris’s brief to be stricken and orders counsel for
Morris to file a new brief redacting the child's name in the appendix.
Further, counsel for Morris has not complied with Anders and its progeny in that
he has not filed a written representation to this Court that he provided a copy of the brief
to Morris; advised him of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se
response; personally provided him with a copy of the appellate record; and notified him
of his deadline for filing a pro se response. See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998);
see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The Court further
orders that counsel for Morris provide this Court with the required written
representation with the redacted brief.
The redacted brief and written representation are ordered to be filed within 14
days from the date of this order.1
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Brief stricken
Order delivered and filed July 13, 2016
1This Court does not, at this juncture, address whether or not a motion to withdraw is currently necessary
at this stage of the proceedings in light of recent Texas Supreme Court precedent. See In the Interest of P.M.,
No. 15-0171, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 236, at **5-8 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016). This Court notes that counsel for Morris
referenced withdrawing as counsel in the prayer of his brief but did not file a motion to withdraw as
counsel. In light of Morris's continuing need for counsel, a motion to withdraw may not only be premature,
see In re P.M., 2016 Tex. LEXIS 236 at *8, it may be unnecessary.
In the Interest of G.P., a Child Page 2