NO. 07-10-0477-CV 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 AT AMARILLO 

 PANEL E 

 JULY 7, 2011 

 ______________________________ 

In the Interest of B.Y., 

 A Child 

 ___________________________ 

 FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF DONLEY COUNTY; 

 NO. DFC-09-06665; HON. PHIL N. VANDERPOOL, PRESIDING 

 _______________________________ 

Order for Appointment of New Counsel

_______________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., HANCOCK, J., and BOYD, S.J.1

Appellant Latazha Youngblood Sanchez had her parental rights to B.Y. 

terminated and has appealed from that order. Her appointed counsel has filed a 

motion to withdraw, together with an Anders2

 brief wherein he certified that, after 

diligently searching the record, he has concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along 

with his brief, appellate counsel has attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant 

informing her of her right to file a response pro se. By letter dated April 19, 2011, this 

                                                            1

John T. Boyd, Senior Justice retired, sitting by assignment.

2

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2

court also informed appellant of her right to tender her own response and set May 19, 

2011, as the deadline to do so. Appellant filed a response on May 18, 2011. 

Appellate counsel has noted in his brief that the termination order was signed on 

October 28, 2010, and that the statement of appellate issues was filed by trial counsel 

on November 15, 2010, outside of the fifteen days required by statute. See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. §263.405(b)(2) (Vernon 2008). Therefore, any error that could be reviewed 

allegedly was waived. Appellate counsel, then, discussed the legal and factual 

sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's statutory findings resulting in 

termination and the effectiveness of trial counsel. 

In In the Interest of J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 347 (Tex. 2009), the Texas 

Supreme Court affirmed this court’s decision stating an “ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim raises due process concerns and that section 263.405(i) of the Family 

Code is unconstitutional to the extent it prevents a court from considering those claims.” 

We find it problematic when appellate counsel determines appellant received effective 

assistance of counsel even though issues were waived because trial counsel failed to 

timely file a motion for new trial or statement of points on appeal. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw of appellate counsel is granted, and the 

cause is abated and remanded to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel. 

The trial court shall further order the newly appointed counsel to file an appellant’s brief, 

as per the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, developing the aforementioned ground 

pertaining to the effectiveness of counsel per In the Interest of J.O.A., supra, and all 

other grounds that might support reversal or modification of the judgment. The deadline 
3

for filing appellant’s brief with the clerk of this court is August 30, 2011. Any responding 

brief which the State wishes to file shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of 

appellant’s brief. Finally, the trial court shall cause the name, address, and state bar 

number of the newly appointed counsel to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record, 

which record shall be filed with the clerk of the court by August 1, 2011. 

 Per Curiam