### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 409 -CV

TomElt on R obe r ts on, Sr . , A ppe lla nt

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY , 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. B -06 -00 38- CP S , HO NORAB LE JAY K. WEATH ERB Y , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N
This is an ap p e a l f

r o m a no r d e r te r mi n ati n gth e p ar e n ta l r igh ts o f T o m E lt on Robertson, Sr., to his mi nor child. R obertson appear ed in person and throug h counsel at a benc h trial wher e the c ourt order ed Robertson’s parenta l rig hts terminated. Robertson, who was inc arc erated at the time of the he aringand t ransported to Tom Gree n County for the pur

poses of be ing pr esent for the he aring , filed a notice of appe al and r equeste d a court-a ppointed attorney to r epre sent him on
a pp e a l. Robertson’s court-a ppointed appellate counsel has filed a n An de rs brief c ontaining a prof essional eva luation of the re cord a nd demonstratingthat there are no arguable grounds to be advanc ed on appe al. Se eAn de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 7 3 8, 744 (1967). The brief me ets the require ments of An de rs . Se eTay lor v . Te x as De p’ t of Prote c tiv e&Re

gu lator ySe rv s. , 160 S.W .3d 6 4 1 , 6 4 6 -4 7 (T ex . Ap p . — Au s t i n2 0 0 5 , p et
. d en i ed ) ( ap p l yi n g An de rs p r o c e d ur e in a p p e a l f romWe ha ve rec eived a letter from Robertson re questingthat he be a llowed to reta in his non- 1 custodial pare ntal rig hts and be a ppointed an attorne y

who is “ca

pable” of submitting a mer itorious brief. H oweve r, our r eview is c onfined to whe ther Rober tson has shown that the di s t ri ct court committed an er ror warra nting r ever sal of the judg ment. Se eMi tc he ll v . Te x as De p’ t of Fa mi ly &Prote c tiv eSe rv

s. , N o. 03 -0 7- 00 34 8- CV , 2 00 8 T e x. Ap p. L EX I S 35 74 , at *5 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin May 15, 2008, no pet.) (me m. op.). To the extent that Robertson is assertinga cla im of ineffe ctive assistance of appe llate co u n s el , this matter is not withi n the scope of our r eview. See id. Robertson’s letter doe s not show that, based on the totality of the re cord, the trial court c ommitt ed any reve rsible er

ror in ter minating his par ental rights. See id. ; see also Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W .2d 367, 370-372 (Te x . 1976). 2 termination of par ental rights). Counsel conclude s that the appe al is without merit and has filed a motion to wit hdraw
.

Counsel has provided Rober tson with copies of the brie f, the motion, and the re cord, and has notified Robe rtson of his rig ht to file a pro se brief. N o pro se br ief ha s been f iled. Af te r i nd epen den tl y

revi ewi ng th e reco rd, we h ave f ou ndno th in g th a

t w ou ld a rg ua bly support an appea l, a

nd we ag ree that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. Se eAn de rs , 3 86 U. S.
at 74 1- 44 ; Taylor , 160 S.W .3d at 646-47. We there fore aff irm the district court’s orde r and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1

J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Waldrop Affir med Filed: January

29, 2009