Opinion filed April 9, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-14-00360-CV

___________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-3368-PC

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of the mother 

and the father of J.R. The father filed a notice of appeal; the mother did not. We 

dismiss the appeal.

The father’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a 

supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record 

and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. The 

brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no 
2

arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). In this regard, 

the practice recognized in Anders for court-appointed counsel to seek a withdrawal 

from a frivolous appeal applies to parental termination proceedings involving 

appointed counsel. In re R.M.C., 395 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2013, no 

pet.); see In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no 

pet.). 

Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and informed 

Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief.

1

Appellant’s counsel provided notice to Appellant via both certified and first class 

mail. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), 

counsel also provided Appellant with a form motion to file in this court to obtain

access to the appellate record. We note that Appellant has not filed the motion in 

this court. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his duties under 

Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. 

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and 

should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. Accordingly, we grant the

motion to withdraw filed by Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel.

Additionally, we order counsel to notify Appellant of the disposition of this appeal 

and the availability of discretionary review in the Texas Supreme Court. Counsel is 

directed to send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment within five days after 

the opinion is handed down, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a 

 

1By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief. Appellant has filed a response in which he asks for a fair chance to get his daughter and 

to prove that he can be a good father. 
3

pro se petition for review under TEX. R. APP. P. 53. Likewise, this court advises 

Appellant that he may file a petition for review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 53. 

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

April 9, 2015

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.