in the Interest of A.D. and B.D., Children ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed December 10, 2015
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    ___________
    No. 11-15-00194-CV
    ___________
    IN THE INTEREST OF A.D. AND B.D., CHILDREN
    On Appeal from the 326th District Court
    Taylor County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 7815-CX
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental
    rights of the mother and the father of A.D. and B.D. The mother filed a notice of
    appeal; the father did not. We dismiss the appeal.
    The mother’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 is frivolous. The brief meets the
    requirements of Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), by presenting a
    professional evaluation of the record 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 this regard, the practice recognized in Anders for court-appointed counsel to seek
    a withdrawal from a frivolous appeal applies to parental termination proceedings
    involving appointed counsel. In re R.M.C., 
    395 S.W.3d 820
     (Tex. App.—Eastland
    2013, no pet.); see In re K.D., 
    127 S.W.3d 66
    , 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
    2003, no pet.).
    Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the
    motion to withdraw and informed Appellant of her right to review the record and
    file a pro se response to counsel’s brief.1 In compliance with Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a
    copy of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record. We note that Appellant has not
    filed a pro se response in this court. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has
    satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly.
    Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
    independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
    should be dismissed. See Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d at 409
    . Accordingly, we grant the
    motion to withdraw filed by Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel.
    Additionally, we order counsel to notify Appellant of the disposition of this appeal
    and the availability of discretionary review in the Texas Supreme Court. Counsel is
    directed to send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment within five days after
    the opinion is handed down, along with notification of her right to file a pro se
    petition for review under TEX. R. APP. P. 53. Likewise, this court advises Appellant
    that she may file a petition for review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 53.
    The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
    December 10, 2015                                                  PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
    Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
    1
    By letter, this court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise her right to file a
    response to counsel’s brief.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-15-00194-CV

Filed Date: 12/10/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/28/2016