Order filed August 3, 2018. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00427-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF C.W., D.T., J.T., AND A.T., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 300th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 88637-F

ORDER

Appellant’s appointed counsel, Faye Gordon, filed a brief which she 

designates as an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 

1396 (1967); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329–30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (applying Anders procedures to a parental-termination case). 

To comply with Anders, counsel must do the following:

(1) Either (a) advance contentions which might arguably support the 

appeal, but, in the attorney’s professional opinion are frivolous; or (b) 

present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why 

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 

(2) File a copy of the transmittal letter to their client accompanying a 
copy of the Anders brief in which they inform appellant of the right to 

file a pro se brief and obtain a copy of the record by filing a motion 

for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

The Anders procedure balances an indigent parent’s constitutional right to 

appointed counsel on appeal and counsel’s obligation not to prosecute frivolous 

appeals. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016). Arguments which 

may support an appeal must be disclosed by appointed counsel. See Banks v. State, 

341 S.W.3d 428, 430 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, order). Appointed 

counsel should identify potential arguments, explain the ground, and cite to 

applicable legal authority and pertinent evidence. Id. at 431. An issue which is 

arguable on the merits is, by definition, not frivolous. Sam v. State, 467 S.W.3d 

685, 687 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, order). Appointed counsel may 

not simply justify the contention that the potential error is not an arguable ground 

with a conclusory statement that no grounds for appeal exist. Banks, 341 S.W.3d at 

431.

Counsel’s brief contains a conclusory statement that “the appeal is frivolous 

and without merit and that the record reflects no reversible error or grounds upon 

which an appeal . . . can be fairly predicated.” Counsel then advances three 

contentions which might arguably support the appeal. In her analysis of those 

contentions, counsel does not explain why they are frivolous or without merit. 

Rather, counsel contends the trial court’s judgment is not supported by legally or 

factually sufficient evidence as to the termination grounds under Texas Family 

Code section 161.001(b). Further, the Anders brief also requests reversal of the 

trial court’s judgment. 

Additionally, counsel has not provided the court with a transmittal letter,

accompanied by a copy of counsel’s Anders brief, notifying appellant of her right 
to file a pro se brief and obtain access the appellate record which includes a form 

motion for pro se access to the appellate record. A copy of the form motion is 

attached.

Accordingly, we conclude counsel has not filed a brief in compliance with 

the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). See

In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329–30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no 

pet.) (applying Anders procedures to a parental termination case). Finally, the brief 

discloses the name of a minor’s parent or other family member in a parentaltermination case. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.

We strike appellant’s brief and order appellant’s counsel to file a brief on the 

merits or an Anders brief that provides a professional evaluation of the issues and 

explanation of why the issues are frivolous within 5 days of the date of this 

order. See Echeta v. State, 510 S.W.3d 100, 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2016, order) (providing appointed counsel the opportunity to file a new brief in the 

event of an error in form due to counsel disclosing potential grounds for appeal but 

failing to provide a professional evaluation). Appellant’s brief must comply with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.8 (an alias should be used to identify the 

child and the child’s family in an appeal arising out of a parental-termination case).

Additionally, if counsel files another Anders brief, counsel must comply with the 

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967) as 

discussed herein. If counsel fails to file a brief within 5 days of this order, we will 

order the trial court to conduct a hearing related to the appointment of new counsel.

All future filings by any party must comply with Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.8 or are subject to being stricken.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Busby.
Return to:

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, TX 77002

NO. 14-__-_____-CV

_____________ § COURT OF APPEALS

v. § 14TH DISTRICT

The State of Texas § HOUSTON, TEXAS

Pro se Motion for Access to Appellate Record

To the Honorable Justices of Said Court:

On ___________ [attorney to fill in date], appellant’s appointed counsel 

filed a brief in the above styled and numbered cause pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

_________________, appellant, moves this court to provide him/her access 

to a copy of the appellate record including the clerk’s record and the court 

reporter’s record.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________

Pro se Appellant