### NUMBER 13 - 1 2 - 00 741 - C V 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

- 

## EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF J. L. G ., A CHILD

On appeal from the 156th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justice s Rodriguez, Garza , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes Appellant, I.G., appeal s from a trial court judgment term inating his parental rights
t o his daughter, J. L. G. The case was tried to a jury which found appellant : (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well

- being of the child; (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotion al well

- being of the child; (3) failed to comply with provisions of a court
orde r that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of2

the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child ’s removal from the parent; (4) has b een convicted or has been placed on community supervision, including deferred adjudication community supervision , for being criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child or a djudicated for
conduct that caused the death or serious injury of a chi ld and that would con stitute a violation of section 22.011 of the penal code ; and (5) knowingly engaged in criminal
conduct that resul ted in the parent’s conviction o f an offense and confinement or imprisonment and inability to care for the child for not less than two years from the date of the filing of the petition. The jury also found that termination of appellant’s parental rights would be in the child’s best inter est. The trial court’s termination order reflects each of these reasons for termination. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), the court

- appointed attorney for appellant filed a brief and motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel ’ s brief meet s the requirements of Anders as i t present s a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide rec ord references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

– 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Th e Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights3

when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non

- frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S ., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Appellant’s attorney ha s so concluded. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant ’ s attorney carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. The attorney informed this Court that he (1) examined the record and found no arguab le grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served copies of his brief and m otion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a p ro se response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed . A ppellan t ha s not filed a pro se re sponse. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409

. II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We reviewed the entire record and counsel ’ s brief, and found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 2 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2 d at 509. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.4 III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders , appellant ’s attorney asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

– 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“I f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous

. ”) (citation s omitted)). We grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, the attorney is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellan t and to advise him of his right to file a petition for review. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). GREGORY T. PERKES Justice Delivered and filed the 14th day of March , 201 3

.

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Supreme Court of Texas, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for review or file a pro se petiti on for review. Any petition for review must be filed within forty

- five days after the date of either this opinion or the last ruling by this Court on all timely filed motions for rehearing or en banc reconsideration. 53.7(a). Any petition for review must comply with the requirements of rule 53.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id . at R. 53.2.