the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No.
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
E. NEILL JUSTICE
M.A., challenges the trial court's order terminating her
parental rights to her child, R.P., following a bench trial.
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. 493 (1967); see In re
E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.-Waco 2002, order)
(applying Anders to termination appeals).
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).
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. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
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.
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.
on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In addition, we remind appellant's appointed appellate
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(2) (West 2019).