NUMBER 13-12-00741-CV

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 Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

Appellant, I.G., appeals from a trial court judgment terminating his parental rights 

to 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 emotional well-being of the child; (3) failed to comply with provisions of a court 

order 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 of 
2

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 been 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 adjudicated for 

conduct that caused the death or serious injury of a child and that would constitute a 

violation of section 22.011 of the penal code; and (5) knowingly engaged in criminal 

conduct that resulted in the parent’s conviction of 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 interest. 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 meets the requirements of Anders as it presents 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 record 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).

The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights 
3

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 has 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 arguable grounds to advance on 

appeal; (2) served copies of his brief and motion to withdraw on appellant; and 

(3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro 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. Appellant has

not filed a pro se response. 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, 827–28

(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.2d 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.) (“If 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.”) (citations 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 appellant and to 

advise him of his right to file a petition for review.1 See TEX. R. APP. 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, 2013.

 

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 petition 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.