in the Interest of R.P., a Child ( 2019 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-19-00165-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF R.P., A CHILD
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. DC-18-48388
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, M.A., challenges the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights
to her child, R.P., following a bench trial. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has
filed an Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the record and that, in his
opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 493 (1967); see In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002,
order) (applying Anders to termination appeals).
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief
and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded
no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements
of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’
points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts
and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State,
112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there
are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court
that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on
appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant; and
(3) provided appellant with a copy of the record and informed her of her right to file a
pro se response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510
n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time
1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “‘the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.’” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
In re R.P. Page 2
has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.2 See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 409.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record
and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of
Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs
and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. In addition, we
remind appellant’s appointed appellate counsel that if appellant, after consulting with
counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file
with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an
Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016); see In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531,
In a notice attached to his Anders brief, appellate counsel indicated that a “copy of the appellate
2
record has already been delivered to Appellant.” Based on this assertion and the fact that appellant has
not argued that she failed to receive a copy of the record, we have fair assurance that appellate counsel has
complied with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
In re R.P. Page 3
535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2) (West
2019).
JOHN E. NEILL
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed August 28, 2019
[CV06]
In re R.P. Page 4