O pinion filed August 9 , 2018



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

___ ___ ____ No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 0 65

- C V

____ __ ____ IN THE INTEREST OF K.A.P

. AND D.M.P. , CHILD REN

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 terminat ed the parental rights of the mother and the father of K.A.P. and D.M.P

. The mo ther filed a notice
of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
The mo ther’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which s he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and conclude s that the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a2

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 u nder 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 “a ppointed counsel ’ s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. ” I d. 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 Ap pellant of h er right s 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. W e conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied h er dut ies under Anders , Schulman , and Kelly

. We note that Appellant f

ile d 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

. W hile w e 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). F ollowing 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 denie d, 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.