### NUM BER 13-08- 0056 9-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

IN TH E IN TE RES T OF G.M . A ND X.M ., CH ILD REN

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 5th D istrict Co urt of Go nzale s C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G ar za , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Gabr iel M ., appeal s t he tr ial cou rt’s j udg ment t er minat ing hi s p ar ental

r i g ht s w i th r es pe c t to G .M

. an d X .M ., mi no r c hi l dr en

. W e affi r m. I. “F R I VOLO U S A P P E AL ” B R I EF Appel lan t’ s c our

t- appoi nted a p p e lla te c ounse l has filed a mot ion to w it hdr aw and a brief in suppo rt thereo f

in w hich she state s that she ha s d il ig e ntly rev iew ed th e en tire record an d tha t “the record conta ins no reversible error and no jurisdictional d ef ects are prese nt.” See Ande rs v. C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967) ; Porte r v. Tex. Dep’ t of Prote ctive & Regu latory Se rvs. , 105 S.W .3d 52, 56 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ( “[ W ]hen appoi nted couns el re pr esen ts an i ndi g ent c li ent i n a p ar ental ter minat ion appeal and

conc lud es that ther e ar e no n o n -f ri v olo us is sues for a ppeal , c ounse l mayfil e an And ers -ty pe b rief .”). In he r br ief, c ounse l addr ess es thr ee “pos si ble points of er ro r” : (1 ) the e v ide nce w asIn th e c rim i n a l c o n te x t, th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s h a s h e l d th a t “th e p ro s e re s p o n s e [t o 1 a ‘ f r i v ol ous a ppeal ’ br i ef ] nee d no t com pl y w i t h t he r ul es of app el l at e pr ocedur e i n or der t o be consi der ed. R athe r, t he res po ns e s ho ul d i de nti fy fo r t he c ou rt tho s e i s s ue s w hi c h t he i nd i ge nt ap pe l l an t be l i eve s t he co urt s ho ul d c on s i de r i n d ec i di ng w he t he r t he ca s e p res en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s

. ” I n r e Schul m an , 252 S. W

. 3d 403, 409 n. 23 ( T ex. C r i m

. App. 200 8) ( quot i ng W i l s o n v . S ta te , 955 S. W

. 2d 693, 696- 97 ( T ex. App. –W aco 19 97 , no pe t

. ))

. 2 ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he findi ng thatappel lan t’ s c onduc t end ang er ed th e phy si ca l or emoti onal w ell -b ein g of the c hil dr en, see T EX

. F AM

. C OD E A NN

. § 161. 001( 1) (E ) (V er non 2008) ; ( 2) the ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t to suppo rtthe findi ng thatappel lan t’ s i ncar cer ati on
re ndered h im unable t o c ar e for the c hil dr en, see id. § 16 1.001( 1) (Q )( ii ); and (3 ) the

ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t to suppor t the f ind ing that ter minat ion w as in the b est i nter est of the c hil dr en, see id. § 16 1.0 01(2 ). Co u n s e l c o n clude s, howev er, tha t the se issues lack meri t and thatany

appeal i n this c a se w oul d be friv olo us. C ounse l’ s b ri ef meets t he

r e q u i r e me n t s o f And ers as itpr esent s a pr ofessi onal ev alu ati on s how ing w hy ther e ar e no
non- friv olo us g ro unds for adv anci ng an appe al. See In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 07 n.9 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2008) ( or ig . pr oceed ing ); Staf for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503, 510 n.3 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 1) (en ban c). In c ompli ance w it h Hi

gh v. Stat e , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 1978) , c ounse l has car efull y di sc uss ed w hy , und er co ntr oll ing auth or it y , t her e ar e no
re v er si ble er ro rs i n the tr ial co urt’ s jud g ment. Cou nsel has infor med thi s Cou rt that she has (1) ex am ined the reco rd and has f oun d no non -f riv olou s g roun ds t o a dvance on app eal, (2 ) ser v ed a c o p y o f

t he br ief and moti on to w it hdr aw on a ppel lan t, and ( 3) i nformed appel lan t of hi s ri g ht to rev iew the re cor d and to fil e a p ro se r espon se. See Ande rs , 386 1 U. S. a t 744 ; Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d a t 510 n.3. M or e tha n an adeq uate ti me has pas sed, and no pr o s e r espon se has been fil ed. II. I NDEPE NDENT R EVI EW Upon receiv ing a “ f riv olou s app eal” brief , w e mu st cond uct a fu ll ex am inatio n of all the p ro ceedi ng s t o det er mine w hether the cas e is w hol ly friv olo us. See Penso n v. Ohio , 488 U. S. 75, 80 ( 1988) ; see als o In re M .P.O

. , N o. 13 -0 8- 00316- CV , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 0 3 , a t * 3 -4 (T e x. A p p

. – Co rp u s Ch ri s t i Ja n

. 8 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t

. ) (m e m

. o p

. )

. W e h a veN o sub st i t ut e cou nsel wi l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d appel l ant w i sh t o see k f ur t her r ev i ew oft hi s case 2 by t he T exas Supr em e Cour t , he m ust ei t her re t ai n an at t or ney t o f i l e a pet i t i on f or r ev i ew or f i l e a pr o se pet i t i on f or r ev i ew. Any pet i t i on f or r ev i ew m ust be f i l ed wi t hi n 45 day s af t er t he dat e of ei t her t hi s opi ni on o r th e l a s t ru l i n g b y th i s C o u rt o n a l l ti m e l y fi l e d m o ti o n s fo r re h e a rin g o r e n b a n c re c o n s i d e ra ti o n

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 53. 7( a)

. Any pet i t i on f or r ev i ew m ust c om pl y w i t h t he r equi r em ent s of R ul e 53

. 2 of

t he T exas Rul es of A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 53. 2. 3 re v iew ed th e r ecor d and find th at t he appe al is w hol ly fri v olo us and w it h o ut mer it

. See Bl edsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 824, 82 7- 28 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ( “D ue to the natur e of And ers br iefs, by

i ndi cat ing i n the opi nio n i t c onsi der ed th e i ss ues ra is ed in the b ri ef and

re v iew ed th e r ecor d for rever si ble er ro r but found n one, the c our t of appeal s metthe

re q uir ements of Tex as Rul e of Appell ate P ro cedur e 47. 1.” ); Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d a t 509

. III

. M OT I ON TO W IT H D R AW In ac cor dance w it h And ers , c ounse l h a s fil ed a moti on to w it hdr aw

. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 408 n.17 ( ci ti ng Je ffer y v . St ate , 903 S.W .2 d 7 7 6 , 779 -8 0 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1995, no pet .) ( “I f an atto rn ey bel iev es the appeal is friv olo us, he must w it hdr aw from re pr esent ing the appel lan t. To w it hdr aw from

re p re s e n t a t io n , t h e a p p o in t e d a t t o rn e y m u s t f il e a m o t io n t o wit h d ra w a c c o m p a n ie d b y a b r i e f s h o w i n g t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u rt t h a t t h e a p p e a l i s f r i v o l o u s

. ” ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) )

. W e gr a n t co u n s e l’ s m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. W e f u rt h e r o rd e r t h a t c o u n s e l m u s t , wit h in f ive d a ys 2 of the dat e of t his opi nio n, noti fy appel lan t of the dis posi ti on of thi s a ppeal and of his r ig ht to pu rs ue a peti ti on for re v iew i n the Tex as Supr eme C our t. See In re K.D. , 127 S. W .3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 03, no pe t.). IV. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

DO RI C ON TRER AS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 20t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.