in the Interest of K.I., a Child ( 2021 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-20-00295-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K.I., A CHILD
From the 74th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2020-134-3
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, S.B., challenges the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to
her child, K.I. 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. 2d 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. 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
has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.
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.
In the Interest of K.I., a child Page 2
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 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, 535 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016. Moreover, we
deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28; In re G.P., 503
S.W.3d at 535 (“Because appellate counsel’s duty extends beyond this Court’s decision,
we will not require the filing of a motion to withdraw to be filed contemporaneously with
the Anders brief in termination of parental rights proceedings unless counsel believes
good cause exists for the withdrawal for reasons other than the filing of the Anders
brief.”); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016.
In the Interest of K.I., a child Page 3
JOHN E. NEILL
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed; motion denied
Opinion delivered and filed January 27, 2021
[CV06]
In the Interest of K.I., a child Page 4