### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 30 -C V

______________________________

IN T H E IN T E R E S T O F J
. J
. W
. , A C H ILD

On Appea l from the 307th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 2007-2037- DR

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issAfter the trial cour

t signe d its final or der terminating Champion's pa renta l rig hts, Champion 1 tim e ly fi le d a mot ion fo r ne w tr ia l and a state me nt of iss ue s o n a

pp e a l pu rs ua nt t o Se c tio n 2 63 .4 05 (i ) of t he Tex as F amily

Code. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN .§ 263.405(i) (V ernon 2008) . I n his statement of p o ints on appeal, he challeng es the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the e vidence to support the g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n a

nd a lso c ha lle ng e s the tr ia l c ourt ' s d e nia l of his re qu e st f

or a be nc h w a rr a nt. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Michae l Champion ( a) never had a relationship with his natural son, J .J .W.; (b) paid only one
c hil d s up po rt

pa y me nt ( $1 2. 50 in O c tob e r 2003 ) fo r J.J.W. ; ( c ) w a s mo st r e c e ntl y c on vic te d in June 20 07 of p o s s e s s i o no f a c o n t r o l l e d

s u b s t an c e w i t h i n t e n tt o d e l i v e r an d w a s s e n t e n c e d

to nineteen y ear s' imprisonment; (d) spent much of th e twelve y ear s befor e 2007 inca rce rate d for
va ri ou s o the r o ff

e ns e s; and (e ) ha s no t ma de any sig nif ic ant e ff or t to a rr ang e fo r J.J.W. ' s c are wh ile Champion was incarce rate d. The trial court ordere d Champion's pa renta l rig hts to J .J .W. terminated and then de nied Champion' s motion for new trial a nd found that Champi o n 's appea l asserting the leg al and f

actua l ins u ff

i ci ency of the e vidence was fr ivolous, as was his appea l of the denia l of a bench w arr ant. Cham p i o n , an inmate of the Texas Depa

rtment of Criminal J ustice–Institut ional Di vis ion , a

pp e a ls the tr ia l c ourt ' s o rd e r d e nyinghis mot ion fo r n e w tri a l and

fi nd ingfr ivo lou s h is 1

a p p e a l f r o m t h e tr ia l c o u rt' s o r d e r

te r mi n a ti n g h is p ar e n ta l r ig h ts to th e n o w - e ig h t- y e ar - o ld J. J. W. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 263.405(d)( 3) (Ve rnon 2008). We af firm those findin gs o f t he trial court be cause (1) the tr ial court did not abuse its discre tion by concludingthat Champion's leg al and fac tual sufficie ncy points on appea l wer e frivolous, and (2) the t rial court did not abuse its discre tion by c on c lud ingthat Ch a mpi on ' s a pp e a l of the de nia l of

be nc h w arr ant w a s f

ri vo lou s.3

The Te x as F amily

Code prov i d es t he following proce dure f or see king r eview of

an orde r te rm inatin g pa

re nta l r ig hts : (d) The trial court shall hold a hea ring not later than the 30th day afte r the date the f inal order is signed to de termine whe ther: (1) a new

trial should be g rante d; (2) a par

ty ' s claim of indig ence , if any , should be sustained; and (3 ) the a

pp e a l is fr ivo lou s as pr ov ide d by Se c tio n 1 3. 00 3( b) , Ci vil Practice and Remedie s Code. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 263.405(d)( 3). Section 263.405(g ) limits t he scope of appellate review to the t rial court's determination that the a pp e a l is fr ivo lou s:

(g) T h e ap p el l an tm ay ap p ea l t h e c o u r t ' s o rd er

d en y i n g t h e ap p el l an t 's claim of indig ence or the c ourt' s finding that the appea l is frivolous by filing w ith the a pp e llate c ourt

the re po rt e r' s r e c or d an d cle rk ' s r e c or d o f t he he ari nghe ld u

nd e r t his section, both of which shall be provided without advance pay ment, not later than the 10th day afte r the date the cour t makes the de cision. The appe llate cour t shall review the re cords a

nd may require the par

ties to f ile appellate briefs on the issues prese nted, but may not hear oral a rg ument on the issues. The ap p ellate c ourt shall rende r a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r s a f

t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d s an d a p p e l l a t e b r i e f

s , i f an y. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 26 3. 40 5( g ) ( Ve rn on 20 08 ); see I

n re K.D. , 2 02 S.W .3d

8 6 0 , 8 6 5 ( T e x. App.—For

t Worth 2006, no pet.). "I n deter mining whether an appea l is frivolous, a judge may consider w hether

the appe llant has pres ent ed a s ub st ant ial qu est io n fo r app ell ate revi ew. " T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 1 3. 00 3( b) (V e rn on

20 02 ); see Lum

pk in v . D e p't o f F am ily & Pr ote c tiv e Se rv

s. , 260 S.W .3d 5244

(T e x. Ap p . — H o u s t o n[1 s tD i s t ] 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t
. )
. A na p p e a l i s f r i v o l o u s w h e ni tl a c k s anar g uable basis either in law or in fac t. See K.D. , 202 S.W .3d at 866. We revie w for a n abuse of

discretion the t rial court's determination that an a ppeal is fr ivolous . In re M .N.V. , 2 1 6 S. W. 3 d

8 3 3 , 8 3 4 ( T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 06 , n o p e t.) ; K.D. , 202 S.W .3d at 866. An a pp e a l of a te rm inatio n o rd e r i s lim ite d to the iss ue s pr e se nte d in the state me nt o f p oin ts. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 26 3. 40 5( i)
. Th at said , if a tr ia l c ourt

de te rm ine s th a t an a

pp e a l is frivolous, the court has necessar ily deter mined that eac h of t he is sues identified in the stateme nt of points is frivolous and that they lack an arguable basis in law or fact. See Lum pk in , 260 S.W .3d at 52 7; In re S. T. , 263 S.W .3d 394, 398 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. denie d). Due pr ocess r equire s the petitioner to justify termination o f p ar en t al rig hts by clea r and convincingevidenc e. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . §§ 161.001, 161.206(a) (Ve rnon 2008); In re J .F .C. , 96 S.W .3d 256, 263 (Tex. 20 0 2 ). T h e h i g her bur den of pr oof in termination ca ses eleva tes the appellate standard of both le g al and f actua l sufficienc y

revie w. Se e J

.F .C. , 9 6 S. W.3 d at 26 5; In re C.H. , 8 9 S. W.3 d 1 7, 25 (T e x. 20 02 ). I n d oin g a legal -su ffi cienc y

re vie w i n p are nta l r ig hts termination ca ses, a c ourt must review all of t he evidence in the l ight most favor able to the ve rdict and dete rmine whe ther the e vidence is such t hat a fac t-finder could re asonably form a f irm belief or conviction that the g rounds for te rmination were proven. J .F .C. , 96 S.W .3d at 265–66. I n a fa ctual
su ff ic ie nc y re vie w, in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r the e vid e nc e is su c h that a fa c t- fi nd e r c ou ld r e a so na bly form a f irm belief or

conviction that its finding wa s true, a c ourt must consider whe ther disputedChampion's state ment of points on appea l challeng es the leg al and f actu al sufficie ncy

of 2 evidenc e to support eac h of t he si x g rounds alleg ed ag ainst him, even thoug h the trial cour t found on ly thr e e of tho se a lle g e d g ro un ds
. 5 evidenc e is such that a rea sonable fac t-finder could not have r esolved it in favor of the finding
. Id. at 266. When the trial court c onducts a fr ivolousness hearingon an appe llant's pr oposed leg al and fac tual sufficie ncy

issues, the trial court should apply the standar ds of re view applica ble to clea r and convincingevidenc e as se t out above. K.D. , 202 S.W .3d at 867–68. Wit h respe ct t o the suffic iency of the e vidence , the question befor e this Court, t hen, is whethe r the trial c ourt abused its discre tion in its review of the sufficie ncy of the e vidence
. ( 1) The Trial

Court Did N

ot Abuse Its Discretion by Conc luding that L egal and Factual Sufficiency P oints for Appeal W ere Friv olous Champion's statement of points on appea l a lleg e that leg ally and fac tuall y i n sufficie nt
e vid e nc e su

pp or ts the tr ia l c ourt ' s f

ind ing s a s to sp e c if

ic g ro un ds un de r S e c tio n 1 61 .0 01 (1 ). I n it s 2 final orde r, the trial c ourt found that cle ar a nd convincing evide nce suppor ted three g rounds on which to t e r

mi n a te Ch a mp io n ' s p a

r e nta l rig hts; those gr ounds are outlined in Sections 161.001(1)(D) , (E), a nd (N): knowing ly

place d or knowing ly

allowed the c hild, [ J .J .W.] , to remain in conditions or surrounding s which enda ng er the phy sical or e motional well-being of the c hild;

. . . .6

eng ag ed in conduc t or knowing ly place d the child, [J .J .W.] , with persons who eng ag ed in conduc t which enda ng ers the phy sical or e motional well-being of the child;

. . . . constructively

abandone d the child, [J .J .W.] , who has b ee n in the temporar y manag ing c onservato rs h i p of the De partment of F amily and Protec tive Service s or an author ized ag ency

for not less than six m onths and: (1) t he De partment or authorized ag ency

has made rea sonable efforts to return the child to the fathe r; (2) the fathe r has not re g ularly

visited or maintained sig nificant c ontact with the child; and (3) the f ather has demonstrat ed an i n ability to provide the c hild with a safe e nv ir on me nt. Sufficient evide nce of

only one of those three predic ate g rounds, along with the requisite finding that termination is in the best interest of t h e ch i l d , is sufficient to support the trial c ourt' s termination order
. See In re A.V. , 1 13 S.W. 3d 35 5, 36 2 ( Te x. 20 03 ). Th e pr oc e dura l po sture of thi s c a se c a lls on us to determine whe ther the tria l court abuse d its discretion when it dec ided that a leg al and fac tual sufficie ncy

challeng e to this finding f ailed to pre sent a substantial question for r eview. We c on sid e r t

he tr ia l c ourt ' s f

ind ingin lig ht o f t

he e vid e nc e of

c on str uc tiv e a ba nd on me nt. See In re J

.J.O. , 131 S.W. 3d 61 8, 63 0 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Worth 20 04 , no pe t.)
. Th e Te xas F a mil y Code pro v i d es t h e re quired e lements to support termination on the g round of c onstructive
a ba nd on me nt: The c ourt may order termination of the pa

rent-c hild relationship if the court finds by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e: (1 ) that th e pa

re nt h a s:

. . . .7 (N) const ru ct i vely

abandone d the child who has be en in the perma nent or tempora

ry manag i n g conser

vatorship of the D epar

tment of F a mil y and Pr ote c tiv e Se rv ic e s o r a

n a uth or ize d a g e nc y fo r no t le ss t ha n s ix months, and: (i) the depa rtment or authoriz ed ag ency has made re a so na ble e ff or ts t o r e tur n th e c hil d to the pa

re nt; (ii) the pare nt ha s not r eg ularly visited or m aintained signific ant contac t with the child; and (iii) the par ent has de monstrated an ina bility to provide the c hil d w itha

sa fe e nv ir on me nt. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 16 1. 00 1( 1) (N ); see J.J.O

. , 131 S.W .3d at 628–3 0 (holdingevidenc e sufficie nt to support f

i n d i n g o f constructive aba ndonment); In re H.R

. , 87 S.W .3d 691, 699–700 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (same)
. A pare nt's imprisonment, in and of itself, does not
co n s t i t u te " abandonme nt" of a child for

purposes of te rmination of par ental rig hts. In re D. T. , 34 S.W .3d 625, 633–34 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2000, pet. denied). The c lerk' s rec ord bef

ore us r evea l s t h at t h e par ent-c hild relationship, in the leg al sense, betwee n Champion and J .J .W. was established i n J uly 2003. After J .J .W.'s m other wa s arr ested a nd no family was available to provide adequate ca re, J.J .W. wa s t aken into the custody of the Te x as De pa rtmen t of Famil y

a nd Pr ote c tiv e Se rv ic e s ( the De pa rtme nt) on

Se pte mbe r 7 , 2 00 7. Th is evidenc e establishes that J .J .W. has been in the Depa rtment' s custody "not less than six months" as require d under Sec tion 161.001(1)(N)
.8

At the hea

ring on the motion for new tr ial, the State summarized the evidence for the tr ial
c ourt : An d I

do be lie ve tha

t th e g ro un ds and

the evide nc e in t

his c a se , e sp e c ia lly

be c a us e Mr . Ch a mpi on

did te sti fy [via te le ph on e ] . . . that he ne ve r h a d a re la tio ns hip wi th thi s c hil d, tha

t he ne ve r s aw the c hil d, ne ve r o bta ine d c ourt or ders to s e e thi s c hil d or to establish his pater nity , that he neve r paid c hild support -- well, he w as established -- his paternity had been established, he did not pay child support, did not support this c hild in any way during the pendenc y of our c ase, did not complete any of the c ourses or pr og rams that ar e off ere d in prison. He said he was wor king on tho se bu t ha d n ot c omp le te d th os e . A nd that sh owing that he ha d e ng a g e d in conduct, of

course , that he wa s in prison for distribution -- possession and distribution of il leg al substance
. We do believe -- and on best interest, would show that [C hampion] i s in no positi on to pare nt this child, and he had never established a re lationship with t he child, never supported the child. And that the child would be e lig ibl e fo r a do pti on , wo uld be a ble to h a ve a

pe rm ane nt h ome and

ha s d on e we ll i n foster c are . Champion presente d no new e vidence to the trial court and expli citly stated that there was none . See In re A.S. , 239 S.W .3d 390, 393 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 2007, no pet.) (pointingout that, at hear ing on motion f

or newtrial, " [t ]he Depar

tment describe d evidenc e that would support its alleg ed g rounds for ter mination" and that pare nt "did not identify evidenc e fr om the t rial t hat would arguably support
an a rgume nt t hat th e jur y c ou ld n ot r e a so na

bly have fo rm e d a

fi rm be lie f o r c on vic tio n a s to the tr uth of the a lleg ations") . As far as his ar gu m ents to the trial court, Champion foc used on the be nch
war rant issue a

nd lodge d only

g ener al asser

tions reg ardingthe suffic iency of the evidence, once pointing out that the ca seworke r involved neve r met with Champion. To the extent that Champion's assertion conce rning no visits from the case worke r ra ised the Se c tio n 1 61 .0 01 (1 )(

N) re qu ir e me nt t

hat r e a so na

ble e ff or ts b e ma de to r e tur

n th e c hil d to the pa

re nt,9

we no te that there is so me a uth or ity that w ou ld s ug g e st t

hat th e e le me nt c on c e rn ingre a so na ble eff orts to return the c hild is i n ap p l i cable when the pa rent is incar cer ated. See D. T. , 34 S.W .3d at 633. Reg ardle ss, implementation of a family service plan by the Depa rtment is ge nera lly

considere d a reasonable eff

ort to return a child to the parent. See In re M .R.J.M. , 2 8 0 S. W. 3 d 4 9 4 , 5 0 5 ( T e x. Ap p. —F or

t Wor th 20 09 , no pe t.) ; In re K.M.B. , 91 S.W .3d 18, 25 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2002, no pet.). He re, the Depa

rtment did implement a family service plan wit h respe ct t o Champion, a plan with which he a

ppare ntly failed to c omply
. So, whether or not the Department was require d, under the se c ir c ums tanc e s, to p re se nt e vid e nc e that it made reas ona

ble e ff or ts t o r e tur

n J.J.W. t o Champion, it di d so by

establishing that it im plement ed a fa mily service plan for Champion. Evidence that the ca seworke r did not meet with Champion does not raise a s u b s tantial issue for
a pp e llate re vie w o n th e se fa c ts. The re cord a lso shows that Champion did not regularly visit or maintain significa nt contact with J .J .W. I n the eight y ear s of J .J .W.'s l ife, Champion has never seen or met the c hild even whe n he wa s not incarc erated. Nor ha s any of his family
. Wit h respe ct to evidenc e of Champion's failure to provide a sa fe e nvironment for J.J .W., the trial court had befor e it Champion's c riminal history showing that he has r epeatedly been c onvicted of po ss ess ion

of a c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e . Ase ri e s o f c on vic tio ns , c omm un ity su pe rv isi on s,
revoc ations, and in ca rc er ati ons for off enses, c enter ed primar ily on char g es of possession of controlled substanc es, have resulted in Champion having spent a g ood deal of the time betwee n 1995We r e c og nize that M.R.J.M

. and S. M. L. examine incarc eration as a conside ration under 3 Section 161.001(1)( D) a

nd (E), but, sinc e safe environment is an e lement of subsec tion (N), we think e vid e nc e of e nd ang e ri ng e nv ir on me nt and e nd ang e ri ng c on du c t is a lso re le va nt to a pa re nt' s a bil ity to provide a c hild with a safe e nvironment. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1)(N). 10 an d th e p r e s e n t i n c ar c e r a te d
. I nJu n e 2 0 0 7 , h is mo s t r e c e n t c o n v ic ti o n , f o r th e f ir s t- d e g r e e felony offe nse of possession of c ontrolled substance with t h e i n t en t t o deliver, r esulted in a sente nce of nineteen y ear s' imprisonment. Champion's re p ea t ed convic tions and resulting prolong ed incar cer ation is a fac tor that may be considere d. See M.R.J.M

. , 2 80 S.W. 3d

a t 50 3; In re S. M. L. , 171 S.W .3d 472, 478–79 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2005, no pet.). Whil e inca rce ration alone 3 is not enoug h t o s h o w constructive abandonme nt, Champion's re peate d and prolong ed cr iminal activities, the latest o f wh i ch s ent him to prison for ninetee n y ear s, is a consideration when deter mining whe ther Champion is unable to pr ovide J .J .W. a safe living environment. See S. M. L. , 1 7 1 S
. W
. 3 d

at 4 7 9 (e x p l ai n i n g t h at "[ w] h en p ar en t s ar e in ca rc er at ed , t h ey ar e ab s en tfr o m t h e c h i l d 's da ily lif e and are un a ble to pr ov ide su

pp or t, a nd wh e n p are nts lik e a

pp e lla nt r e pe a te dly

c omm it
cr i m i n al ac t s t h at s u

b j ec t t h em t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f i n ca rc er at i o n , t h at ca nn ega t i v el y i mp ac ta c h i l d 's living envir onment and emotional we ll-being ")
. I n addition to the continuous criminal activity in w hich Champion has participated, the trial court c ould also consider what C hampion has not done to provide J.J .W. a safe e nvironment. See Lum pk in , 260 S.W .3d at 528 (noting that endang erme nt can be shown by acts and failure s to act). Most notably , Champion has paid almost no support over the e ight year s of J .J .W.'s life; the r ecor dOf c ours e , th e ins tant c a se is d ist inguis ha ble fr om Cab all e ro beca

use Cab all e ro involves 4 a re view of a

finding under Sec tion 161.001(1)(Q) which, amongother thing s, require s clea r and convincing evidenc e that the pare nt "knowing ly eng ag ed in cr iminal conduct that has re sulted in the pare nt's . . . c onfinement or imprisonment and ina bility to car e for

the child for not l es s than two y ears fro m t he d ate o f f

i l i n g t h e pet it io n. " T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1)( Q)(ii). Sec tion 16 1. 00 1( 1) (N ) r e qu ir e s th a t th e State pr e se nt c le ar a nd c on vin c ing e vid e nc e of the pa re nt' s " ina bil ity to pro vi de t h e chi ldwi th a saf e env ir on men t. " T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 161.001(1)(N)(iii). Cab all e ro is instructive to the deg ree that subsections (N) and (Q ) ca n look to sim ilar evide nce. 11 sh ow s th a t, a s o f F e br

ua ry 20 09 , Cha

mpi on ha d ma de on ly on e c hil d- su pp or t pa y me nt o f $ 12 .5 0 in October 2003. Fur ther, the rec ord does not show that Champion ma de any signific ant ef

fort to ar rang e for the ca re of J .J .W. while Champion was incarc erated. He did provide name s and conta ct information for f amily members that, he sug g ested, would take in J
. J
. W
. No t h i n g in the rec ord sug g ests that those family

members, none of whom have ever met or seen J .J .W., would or could have pr ovided a saf e home f or J.J .W. At the hear ing on his motion for new trial, Champion did not urg e any thing t o t h e c o n t r a r

y. We see a simil ar situation in I

n r e C a b a l l e ro , 5 3 S. W.3 d 3 91 , 3 96 (T e x. Ap p. —A mari llo 2001, pet. denied) , when a n incar cer ated f

ather prese nted no evidenc e to s h o w t h at someone wa s
av ai l ab l e t o ca re fo r h i s ch i l d d u ri n g h i s i n ca rc er at i o n , t h e c o u rt co n cl u d edt h at t h e t ri al co u rt 's finding reg ardinghis inabilit y to car e for the child could not be ag ainst the overw helming w eig ht of the e vid e nc e . Whe n a

n in c arc e rate d p are nt had arr ang ed for car e duringthe par ent' s incarc eration 4 by naming that p arent' s mother and br other a s possessory conser vators with visitation rights, the12

court reve rsed in pa

rt the trial cour

t's or der of

termination. See In re E.S.S. , 131 S.W .3d 632, 640 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 2004, no pet.). I n the post-trial hear ing to de termine the frivolousness of his appea l, Champion offere d no evide n c e an d s im

p ly r e - u r g e d th e f

a c tu a l an d le g a l in s u f

f ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e " based on [Champi on ] be inginc arc e rate d p ri or to a ll the fa c ts o f r e mov a l in thi s c a se ." Cha

mpi on po int s to
no thi ng sp e c if

ic a lly that wou ld und e rm ine the tr ia l court ' s ter min a tio n o rd e r. No thi ngin t he po sttrial argument to the trial court sug g ests that C h am p i o n argues any new a pproac h or any

question overlooke d or unappr eciated by the trial cour

t in making its orig inal ruling , and the trial court had the full evidentiar

y rec o rd b ef

o re it. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 13 .0 03 (b ); T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 263
. 4 05(d)( 3), (g ). We see nothingin Champion's ar gument or in the limited
re c or d be fo re us to sug g e st any a bu se of dis c re tio n in th e tr ia l c ourt ' s d e te rm inatio n o f f ri vo lou sn e ss. Th e tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

c on c lud ingthat Ch a mpi on failed t o p re se nt a substantial question for appe llate re view. ( 2) The Trial

Court Did N

ot A buse Its Discretion by Concluding that an Appeal of the De nial of Bench W

arrant W as Frivolous Since Aug ust 15, 2008, trial had bee n schedule d fo r Fe b ru ar y 11, 2009. The mandatory dismiss al d ate, pur suant to Section 263.401 of the Te x as F amily Code, was slate d for Ma rch 14, 2009. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 263.401 (Ve rnon 2008). On Fe bruar y 2, 2009, nine day s befor e trial, Champion filed a motion reque sting a bench w arr ant. The trial court noted on its denial of that motion that C hampion could par ticipate by

teleconf ere nce.13

I t is well established that litigants cannot be denied acc ess to the courts simply beca use they
are inmates. In re Z.L. T. , 124 S.W .3d 163, 165 (Tex. 2003). An inmate doe s not, however , have a n absolute rig ht to appear

in person in eve ry

court proc eeding
. See id. An inm a te ' s ri g ht of a c c e ss t o the cour ts must be weig hed ag ainst the protec tion of our correc tional sy stem' s integ rity
. Id. Texas courts of appea ls have r ecog nized a varie ty of fa ctors that trial c ourts should consider whe n deciding whether t o g rant a

n inmate' s reque st for a be nch wa rra nt. These f

actor s include the c ost and inc on ve nie nc e of

tr ans po rt ing the pr iso ne r to the c ourt ro om; the se c ur ity

ri sk the pr iso ne r p re se nts to the court and public; whether the prisoner ' s claims are substantial; whether the matter' s resolution
can r easona

bly be dela y ed until the prisoner' s relea se; whethe r the prisone r ca n an d will offer admissible, noncumulative testimony that cannot be eff

ectively prese nted by

deposition, telephone, or some other

means; whe ther the prisoner' s prese nce is important in judg ing his or he r deme anor and cr edibility ; whether

the trial i s to the court or a jury ; and the prisoner ' s probability of succ ess on the merits. Id. at 165–66. A key consideration is whether the i nmate is repr esente d by counsel. See Ar ms tro ng v . R an dle , 881 S.W .2d 53, 57 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1994, writ denied)
. T h e d ec i s i o nt o gra n to r d en y a r eq u e s t f

o ra b en ch wa rr an tl i es wi t h i nt h e t ri al co u rt 's discretion. See In re J

.D.S. , 111 S.W .3d 324, 327 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). Ac ting
on a re quest by

summarily

denyi n g the re quest without weig hing the State' s interest ag ainst an inmate' s interest is also an abuse of discre tion. See id. a t 32 8; In re D.S. , 8 2 S. W. 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 6 ( T e x. App.—C o rp u s C h ri s ti 2002, no pet.). Howe ver, a litigant re questing a benc h war rant be ars the14

burden of establishing his or he r rig ht to relief, an d h e o r she must provide fa ctual information demonstrating his or her need to appea r. Z.L. T. , 1 24 S.W. 3d

a t 16 6; In re S.K.A. , 236 S.W .3d 875, 898 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007), pet. denied , 260 S.W .3d 463 (Tex. 2008). The tria l court does not have a

duty to independently

inquire into the nec essity of an inmate ' s appea

ranc e beyond the contents of the be nch wa

rra nt reque st. Z.L. T. , 1 24 S.W. 3d a t 16 6; In re A. H. L. , 214 S.W .3d 45, 50 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, pet. denied)
. I n Z.L. T. , the Texas Supreme Court disag ree d with the court of appea ls' holding that the trial court ha d an indepen d ent duty to identify

and eva luate, on the r ecor d, the re levant fa ctors bef ore disposing of the fathe r' s motion see king a bench w arr ant. 124 S.W.3d at 166. The court pointed out that, in ge nera l, our rules plac e the bur den on litiga nts to identify

with suffi cient spec ificity the g rounds for a ruling they

seek. See id. (c i t i n g T EX . R C IV . P. 2 1; T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a)( 1)(A) ). A litigant' s status as an inmate doe s not alter that burde n. I d. The c ourt focuse d on the fa ct that the trial court ha d no respo n s i b i l i ty to independently

inquire into releva

nt fac ts not provided by

the moving party , emphasizing that the father' s reque st for a be nch wa rra nt included no information by which the tria l court could a ssess the nec essity of his appea

ranc e. Id. Although the father re fer ence d the re levant conside rations in his reque st, he failed to pr ovide any fac tual information showing why his int er es t in appear ing outwe ighe d the impact on the c orre ctional sy stem: "the only pertinent information contained in the reque st w as that he was located in Roshar on, Texas , m o re t h an 200 mi les fro m th e tr ial cou rt ." Id. Ultimately , the father fa iled to bear his burden to establish his rig ht15

to r e lie f a nd , in lig ht of su c h fa ilure , the tr ia l court did no t abu se its dis c re tio n b y de nyinghis re qu e st for a bench w arr ant. Id. B e c a u s e a t r i a l c o u rth a s n o d

u t y t o g o b e y o n d

a b e n c h w ar

r an tr e qu e s tan d

i n d e pe nd e ntl y inquire into the nece ssity of an inmate' s persona l appea ranc e, the inmate l itigant' s justification for the benc h war

rant a lso is im portant in evaluating whether this appellate issue is frivolous. See id. Her e, Champion' s motion requested only that he be pr esent at the tri al, provided his address, and
ass ert ed t hat hi s at ten dan ce was "requ ir ed t o ach iev e th e end s o f j us ti ce i n t hi s cas e." The re cord sug g ests that Champion testified by telephone. At the hea ring on the motion for new tria l and on appe al, Champion fails to a rticulate howthe pre sentation of his ca se would diffe r ha d h e be e n a llo we d to a tte nd the tr ia l in

pe rs on . T he tr ial court

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in concluding that the benc h war rant issue ha d no arguable ba sis in law or in fac t. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 13 .0 03 (b ); In re K.R. , No. 04-05-00440-CV, 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S 5260, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—San Antonio J une 21, 2006, pet. de nied) (me m. op).16

B a se d o n o ur

re vie w o f t

he lim ite d re c or d, we c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion by

makin g i t s fi n d ing of

frivolousness of Champion' s appea l of the suffic iency of the evidenc e and of

the denial of

his request for

a benc h war

rant. We affir m the trial court' s order
.

J o s h R
. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: J uly 13, 2009 Date D ecide d: Aug ust 11, 2009