in the Interest Of: R.S.P., Children

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed December 13, 2013
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01147-CV
In the Interest of R.S.P., et al, Children
On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 12-753-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Lang-Miers
Opinion by Justice Bridges
Appellant Lorrine Patterson appeals the trial court’s final order terminating her parental
rights to her minor children, R.S.P. and A.S.P. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion
to withdraw, along with an Anders brief, asserting the appeal is without merit and there are no
arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm the
trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial court’s order
terminating parental rights when, as here, appellant’s appointed counsel concludes there are no
non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849-50 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2009, pet. denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2004, no pet.); In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). A
court of appeals is not required to address the merits of claims raised in an Anders brief or a pro
se response. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850 (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). Rather, this Court’s duty is to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so new counsel may be
appointed to address the issues. See id.
Counsel for appellant has filed an Anders brief in which she concludes that, after a
thorough review of the record, appellant’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights is
frivolous and without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 327, 330;
In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67. Counsel has certified that she delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant and has informed appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a
response. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850. Appellant filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record, counsel’s Anders brief, and the pro se
response. We agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
We find nothing in the record that could arguably support the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court’s final order terminating appellant’s parental rights to her two children and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850.
/David L. Bridges/
131147F.P05 DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN RE: IN THE INTEREST OF: R.S.P., ET On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District
AL, CHILDREN Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 12-753-X.
No. 05-13-01147-CV Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges.
Justices Moseley and Lang-Miers
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of appeal.
Judgment entered December 13, 2013
/David L. Bridges
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
–3–