in the Interest of S.R.P., a Child ( 2005 )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 10, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 10, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00711-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF S.R.P., a child

On Appeal from the 300th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 24718*RH03

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant, Casey Amber Etenburn, appeals a final decree signed June 28, 2004, terminating her parental rights to S.R.P.   Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which counsel concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).  The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal.  In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). 

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329-30.  More than forty-five days have elapsed and as of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 10, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Guzman.