Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
In the Interest of I.C.C., D.C., D.R., R.R., A.R., E.R., J.R., and M.R., Children
appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County,
Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa.
L. LONGORIA JUSTICE.
appeals the termination of her parental rights. See
Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st
C.S.). We affirm.
January 26, 2016, The Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services (Department) received a report that a
four-month old child was unresponsive and not breathing, the
child was later pronounced dead. The child was in the care of
the father, R.M.R.
of 2017, a trial was held to determine whether the parental
rights of A.R. should be terminated. See id. The
State alleged A.R. engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the
children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers
the physical or emotional well-being of the children and that
termination of parental rights was in the best interests of
trial was held over the course of two days. After hearing all
of the testimony and reviewing all of the evidence, the trial
court found that the parental rights of appellant should be
terminated. A subsequent order to that effect was rendered.
appeal followed. Appellant's court-appointed counsel has
filed an Anders brief accompanied by a motion to
withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
to Anders v. California, A.R.'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 grounds of error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. See id. 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) (orig. proceeding)
("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).
compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), A.R.'s counsel
carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there
is no reversible error in the trial court's
judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in
writing, that counsel has: (1) notified the A.R. that counsel
has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw;
(2) provided A.R. with a copy of the Anders brief
and the motion to withdraw; (3) informed the A.R. of her
rights to file a pro se response and review the record
preparatory to filing that response; and (4) provided the
A.R. with electronic access to the appellate record, and the
mailing address for the court of appeals. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 319 (tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23.
received electronic access to the appellate record on or
about September 12, 2017. A.R.'s counsel requested a
thirty-day filing extension for A.R.'s pro se response.
We granted the motion on September 13, 2017, with notice sent
to A.R. On November 7, 2017, this Court granted A.R. an
additional extension of time to file a pro se
response, should she choose to do so. The deadline was
extended to November 27, 2017. However, a reasonable amount
of time has passed since that extension expired, and A.R. has
not filed a pro se response with the Court.