in the Interest of J.H. and D.H., Children ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed June 18, 2015
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    ___________
    No. 11-14-00361-CV
    ___________
    IN THE INTEREST OF J.H. AND D.H., CHILDREN
    On Appeal from the 244th District Court
    Ector County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. C-3365-PC
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of the mother
    and the father of J.H. and D.H. 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 states that he has concluded 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
    (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2008); High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    (Tex. Crim. App. 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 (sent via both
    certified and first class mail) and informed Appellant of her right to review the record
    and file a response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel also provided Appellant with a form motion to
    file in this court to obtain access to the appellate record. We note that Appellant did
    file the motion in this court and that this court provided Appellant with a copy of the
    record.1 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 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
    1
    By letter, this court granted Appellant an extension of time in which to exercise her right to file a
    response to counsel’s brief.
    2
    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.
    PER CURIAM
    June 18, 2015
    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
    Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-14-00361-CV

Filed Date: 6/18/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2015