NUMBER 13-14-00341-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF H.C., A CHILD

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law 

of Aransas County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

Appellant T.C. challenges the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights 

with respect to H.C., a minor child.1 We affirm.

 

1 We refer to appellant and the minor child by their initials in accordance with Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.8. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b) (providing that in a parental-rights termination case, "the court 

must, in its opinion, use an alias to refer to a minor, and if necessary to protect the minor's identity, to the 

minor's parent or other family member"); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West, Westlaw 

through 2013 3d C.S.) ("On the motion of the parties or on the court's own motion, the appellate court in its 

opinion may identify the parties by fictitious names or by their initials only."). 
2

I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel 

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that her review of the record 

yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. 386 U.S. 738, 

774–45 (1967); Porter v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 

56 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) ("W]hen appointed counsel represents an 

indigent client in a parental termination appeal and concludes that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, counsel may file an Anders-type brief."). 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).2

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

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 2014 WL 2865901, at *3, appellant’s counsel carefully 

discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's 

judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, that counsel has: (1) notified 

 

2 The State did not file a brief. Instead, the State responded to the Anders brief by acknowledging 

that counsel for appellant concluded that the appeal was frivolous and without merit and informing us that 

it would not file an appellee’s brief unless necessary after reviewing any pro se response or upon order of 

this Court.
3

appellant that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided 

appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant of appellant’s rights to file 

a pro se response,3to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and to seek 

discretionary review if the court of appeals concludes that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) 

provided appellant with a copy of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 2014 

WL 2865901, at *3, 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 time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro 

se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

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

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

U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see also In re G.M., No. 13-08-00569-CV, 2009 WL 2547493, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 20, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). We have reviewed the 

entire record and counsel's brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support 

an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (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. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

3

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

[to a ‘frivolous appeal’ brief] 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) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 

696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
4

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, counsel asks this Court for permission to withdraw as 

counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

1995, no pet.) ("If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from 

representing appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must 

file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the 

appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. 

Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, we order counsel to send a copy of 

the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his right to pursue a 

petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.4 See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

GREGORY T. PERKES

Justice

Delivered and filed the 

23rd day of October, 2014.

 

4 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this 

case by the Texas Supreme Court, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for review or file a 

pro se petition for review. Any petition for review must be filed with the Texas Supreme Court clerk within 

forty-five days after the date of either this opinion or the last ruling by this Court on all timely filed motions 

for rehearing or en banc reconsideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 53.7(a). Any petition for review must 

comply with the requirements of rule 53.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 53.2.