NUMBER 13-19-00005-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF G.N.L., J.M.R.T., J.M.R.T., CHILDREN

On appeal from the 377th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant C.J.B. appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental 

rights to her minor children, G.N.L., J.M.R.T., and J.M.R.T.

1 Appellant’s court-appointed 

counsel has filed a brief stating that the appeal is without merit and that there are no 

arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Porter 

v. Tex. Dep’t. of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex. App.—Corpus 

 1 We refer to appellant and the minor children by their initials in accordance with the rules of 

appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2

Christi 2003, no pet.) (permitting appointed counsel in a parental termination appeal to 

file a brief in compliance with Anders). We affirm. 

I. ANDERS BRIEF 

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief stating that his review of the record yielded no 

grounds of reversible 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)

(en banc).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), 

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no 

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has also informed this Court that 

appellant has been (1) notified that counsel has filed an Anders brief; (2) provided with a 

copy of the Anders brief; (3) informed of her right to file a pro se response and review the 

record preparatory to filing that response2; and (4) provided with a pro se motion for 

 2 In the criminal context, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response 

need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response 

should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in 

deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 
3

access to the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–

20; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. A reasonable amount of time has 

passed, and we have not received a pro se response from appellant. 

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW 

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988). A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief is filed. After 

reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and 

issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are 

arguable grounds for appeal and remand the case to the trial court for appointment of 

new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005). If the court finds arguable grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds 

until after new counsel has briefed those issues on appeal. Id. 

We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found no 

reversible error. See id. at 827–28 (“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. 

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

Appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as appellate 

counsel. The Texas Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to counsel in suits

seeking the termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas

Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24,
4

27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, counsel's obligation to C.J.B. has not yet been

discharged. See id. Counsel's motion to withdraw is therefore denied. See id. If C.J.B., 

after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely 

file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for 

an Anders brief.” Id. 

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice 

Delivered and filed the 

23rd day of May, 2019.