1 

## ... T he H o no r abl e Sol om on J. Cass eb, I I I i s t he pres i di ng j udge of t he 28 8t h J udi ci al D i s t r i ct Co ur t , B exa r C o unt y , T exas. H o wever, t he H o no rable Richard G arci a, A ss o ci at e J u d ge, B exar C o unt y , T exas, presi d ed ove r t he pare nt al t er mi nat i on procee di ng an d s i gn ed t he j udgment s t hatar e a t i s s ue i n t hi s appeal
. T he H onorabl e Jo e Frazi er B row n, Jr. , f

o rme rl y t he p res i d i ng judge o f t he 5 7 t h Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , ad o p t ed t he o rder o f t erm i nat i o n. 

### i i i i i i



# MEM ORAND UMOP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 63 5- CV IN THE INT EREST OF A.J.W. , AChi ld From the 288th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-PA-02577 Honora ble J oe F razier B rown, Jr., J udg e Presiding 1 

## Opinion by : Phylis J . Speedlin, Justice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Phylis J . Speedlin, Justice Marialy n Ba rnard, Justice Deliver ed and F iled: July 15, 2009 AFF IRMED After the trial cour

t terminated their pare ntal rights, L aurieA. and Jay son W. appealed the trial court’ s order

deter mining that an a

ppeal of the t ermination order would be frivolous. See T EX 

## . F AM 

## . C ODE 

## ANN 

## . § 26 3. 40 5(g) (V e rn on 20 08 ). L a

urie and Jay so n’ s c ourt -a

pp ointe d a

pp e llate attorneys eac h filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record a nd demonstratingthat thereareno ar gu ab le grounds to be adva nced r eg ardingtheir re spective c lients. Each c ounsel04
- 08
- 00 63 5- CV

2 

## ... T he C o urt of C ri m i nal A p p eal s i n B l eds oe v. St at e, 178 S. W
. 3d 824, 826- 27 ( T ex . Cr i m. App. 2005) , h el d: W hen f aced wi t h an A n d ers br i ef an d i f a l at er pro s e bri ef

i s f i l ed, t he cour t of

appeal s ha s t wo c h o ic e s. I t m a y d e te rm ine th a t th e a p p e a l is w h o lly frivo lo u s a n d issu e a n o p inio n e x p la inin g tha t i t h a s re v ie w e d the re c o rd a n d fi n d s n o re v e rs ib le e rr o r. A n d ers, 38 6 U
. S. at 7 4 4
. O r, it m ay d et erm i ne t hatar gu abl e g r ounds f or a pp eal ex i s t an d r emand t he cau s e t o t he t r i al cour t s o t hatne w coun s el may b e a p p o inte d to b rie f t h e issu e s. St af f ord v. St at e, 8 1 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). O n ly af t er t he i ss ues have been bri ef ed b y new counsel m ay t he co urt of ap p eal s ad d res s t he m eri t s o f t he issu e s ra ise d
. I

d. a t 5 0 9
- 1 0 (q uo t i ng A n d ers, 38 6 U
. S. at 74 4). I f t he cour t of appeal s wer e t o re vi ew t he cas e a nd i s s ue an op i ni on wh i ch addres s ed an d re j ect ed t he meri t s r ai s ed i n a p ro se re sp o n se to an A n d ers b rie f, the n A p p e llan t wo u ld b e d e p riv e d o f t h e m e a n ing ful a ssista n c e o f co u n se l.

- 2- 

## c on c lud e d th at th e a

pp e a l is wi tho ut m e ri t r e g ardingthe ir c lie nt. Th e brie fs me e t th e re qu ir e me nts of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In r e R .R., N o . 0 4
- 0 3
- 0 0 0 9 6
- CV , 2 0 0 3 WL 2 1 1 5 7 9 4 4 , at* 4 (T ex . Ap p . — S anAn t o n i o M ay 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , n o p et . ) ( ap p l yi n g An de rs pr oc e dure i n
a pp e a l f ro m te rm inatio n o f p are nta l rights ); see also In reK.M. , 98 S.W .3d 774 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2003, order) ( same). Eac h appellate counsel provided their respe ctive client with a c opy of their a ppellate brief, and adv i s ed their c lient of his or her right to examine the re cord a nd to file a pro s ebrief. Jay son timely filed a pro s ebrief. 2 

## After revie wing the rec ord and counsels’ briefs, weagreethat the appe al is frivolous and without merit. See B l ed soe v. State, 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005) (noting court of appeals s hould not addre ss merits of issues raised in An de rs brief or pro s e
re sp on se but sh ou ld o nly de te rm ineif

the app ealis f

ri vo lou s) . T hejudgme nt o f t hetria l c ourt

is there foreaff

irmed, and c ounsels’ motions to withdraw aregrante d.
Phylis J . Speedlin, Justice