IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-20-00295-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.I., A CHILD

From the 74th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-134-3

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, S.B., challenges the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to 

her child, K.I. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief, asserting 

that he has diligently reviewed the record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. 

See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); see In 

re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders to 

termination appeals).

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief 

and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded 
In the Interest of K.I., a child Page 2

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

are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court 

that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on 

appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant; and 

(3) provided appellant with a copy of the record and informed her of her right to file a 

pro se response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 

n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time

has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

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

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 
In the Interest of K.I., a child Page 3

75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record 

and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. In addition, we 

remind appellant’s appointed counsel that if appellant, after consulting with counsel, 

desires to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file with the 

Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders 

brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016); see In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016. Moreover, we 

deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28; In re G.P., 503 

S.W.3d at 535 (“Because appellate counsel’s duty extends beyond this Court’s decision, 

we will not require the filing of a motion to withdraw to be filed contemporaneously with 

the Anders brief in termination of parental rights proceedings unless counsel believes 

good cause exists for the withdrawal for reasons other than the filing of the Anders

brief.”); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016.
In the Interest of K.I., a child Page 4

JOHN E. NEILL

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Neill

Affirmed; motion denied

Opinion delivered and filed January 27, 2021

[CV06]