in the Interest of C.T., a Child ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-21-00050-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C.T., A CHILD
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 88720
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a judgment terminating Father’s parental rights to his son, C.T., on
grounds that he (1) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged
in conduct that endangered C.T.’s physical or emotional well-being; (2) was convicted or placed
on community supervision for indecency with child, sexual assault, and possession or promotion
of child pornography; and (3) knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that resulted in his
imprisonment after conviction of an offense and inability to care for C.T. for not less than two
years from the date of the petition for termination of parental rights.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
§ 161.001(b)(1)(E), (L), (Q) (Supp.). Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a
motion to withdraw and a brief discussing the applicable law and evaluating the entire record in
this case. Counsel concludes that no non-frivolous grounds can be advanced to support reversal
of the trial court’s judgment. While we agree, we modify the trial court’s Ground L finding in
the judgment to reflect that Father was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child instead
of sexual assault and affirm the trial court’s judgment, as modified.
Father’s attorney has filed a brief that states she has reviewed the record and has found no
genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural
history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings.
Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.
1
To protect the confidentiality of the child, we refer to the appellant as Father and to the child by initials. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); see In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam)
(recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases).
On July 9, 2021, counsel mailed to Father copies of the brief, the appellate record, and
the motion to withdraw. Father was informed of his right to review the record and file a pro se
response. By letter dated August 5, this Court informed Father that any pro se response was due
on or before September 7. On September 17, this Court further informed Father that the case
would be set for submission on the briefs on October 8. We received neither a pro se response
from Father nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no
reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
However, non-reversible error is found in the trial court’s Ground L recitation that Father was
convicted of “§ 22.011 (sexual assault).” Since the record demonstrates that Father was
convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, not sexual assault, we modify the trial court’s
judgment to reflect the proper conviction under its Ground L findings. In Anders cases, appellate
courts “have the authority to reform judgments and affirm as modified in cases where there is
non reversible error.” Walker v. State, 557 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018, pet.
ref’d) (quoting Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, pet. struck)
(comprehensively discussing appellate cases that have modified judgments in Anders cases)).
Even so, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 (noting that
in parental-rights termination cases, court-appointed counsel’s duty to her client generally
extends “through the exhaustion of appeals” “including the filing of a petition for review” in the
3
Texas Supreme Court). If Father desires to pursue this matter in the Texas Supreme Court,
counsel may fulfill her duty “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an
Anders brief.” See id. at 28.
We modify the trial court’s judgment by deleting the phrase “§ 22.011 (sexual assault)”
from the Ground L findings and replacing it with Ҥ 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault of a
child).” As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice
Date Submitted: October 8, 2021
Date Decided: November 17, 2021
4