Opinion filed August 9, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-18-00065-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.A.P. AND D.M.P., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 29th District Court

Palo Pinto County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C47239

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental 

rights of the mother and the father of K.A.P. and D.M.P. The mother filed a notice 

of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

The mother’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a 

supporting brief in which she professionally and conscientiously examines the 

record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets 

the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a 
2

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). 

In light of a recent holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion 

to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under the 

circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). 

The court in P.M. stated that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by 

filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 

27–28. 

Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, the motion 

to withdraw, and an explanatory letter. Counsel also informed Appellant of her

rights to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In 

compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), 

counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the appellate record. We conclude that 

Appellant’s counsel has satisfied her duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. 

We note that Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. In 

her response, Appellant expresses her love for the children, her desire to be reunited 

with them, and an explanation for her actions. While we do not doubt the sincerity 

of Appellant’s pro se response, we are unable to consider the factual assertions in her

response because appellate courts cannot consider evidence that appears in an 

appellate brief but was not presented to the trial court. See Perry v. S.N., 973 S.W.2d 

301, 303 (Tex. 1998). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, 

we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the 

appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 
3

However, in light of P.M., we deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by 

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

August 9, 2018

Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.

1

Willson, J., not participating.

 

1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.