Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
IN THE INTEREST OF G.N.L., J.M.R.T., J.M.R.T., CHILDREN
appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County,
Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa
LETICIA HINOJOSA, JUSTICE
C.J.B. appeals from the trial court's judgment
terminating her parental rights to her minor children,
G.N.L., J.M.R.T., and J.M.R.T. Appellant's court-appointed
counsel has filed a brief stating that the appeal is without
merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);
Porter v. Tex. Dep't. of Protective & Regulatory
Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi
2003, no pet.) (permitting appointed counsel in a parental
termination appeal to file a brief in compliance with
Anders). We affirm.
counsel has filed a brief stating that his review of the
record yielded no grounds of reversible 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)
compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
appellant's counsel carefully discussed why, under
controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the
trial court's judgment. Counsel has also informed this
Court that appellant has been (1) notified that counsel has
filed an Anders brief; (2) provided with a copy of
the Anders brief; (3) informed of her right to file
a pro se response and review the record preparatory to filing
that response; and (4) provided with a pro se motion for
access to the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319- 20; see also
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. A reasonable
amount of time has passed, and we have not received a pro se
response from appellant.
receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full
examination of all proceedings to determine whether the case
is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988). A court of appeals has two options when an
Anders brief is filed. After reviewing the entire
record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no
reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable
grounds for appeal and remand the case to the trial court for
appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If
the court finds arguable grounds for appeal, it may not
review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed
those issues on appeal. Id.
reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief, and we
have found no reversible error. See id. at 827-28
("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.
Motion to Withdraw
counsel has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as
appellate counsel. The Texas Supreme Court, however, has held
that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of
parental rights extends to "all proceedings in [the
Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for
review." In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex.
2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, counsel's obligation to
C.J.B. has not yet been discharged. See id.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is therefore denied. See
id. If C.J.B., after consulting with counsel, desires to
file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with
the Texas Supreme Court "a petition for review that
satisfies the standards for an Anders brief."