Court Opinion

ID: 9404745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-24 19:11:03.032779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.848613
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00089-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                      THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                       IN THE INTEREST OF D.W.W., A CHILD

                      On appeal from the 135th District Court
                            of Victoria County, Texas.

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                      Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
                      Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

       Appellant J.W. appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to

her minor child D.W.W. 1 Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief

stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

       1 We refer to appellant and the child by their initials in accordance with the rules of appellate

procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
738, 744 (1967); Porter v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.) (“[W]hen appointed counsel

represents an indigent client in a parental termination appeal and concludes that there

are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, counsel may file an Anders-type brief.”). We affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

                                   I.     ANDERS BRIEF

       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 reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. 386

U.S. at 744. 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, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig.

proceeding) (“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–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

       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. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

in writing that she: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a

motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed

                                             2
appellant of her rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to filing those

responses, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous;

and (4) provided appellant with a copy of 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 408–09.

Appellant did not file 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.

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the 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,

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 requirements of Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. 2

                                    III.     MOTION TO WITHDRAW

        In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. However, when an Anders brief is filed in a parental

termination appeal, the appellant’s right to appointed counsel extends to all proceedings

in the Texas Supreme Court. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (citing TEX. FAM.

        2 We have specifically reviewed the trial court’s findings under § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) of the
family code, and we have found no non-frivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to those
findings. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (holding that “due process and due course of
law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of termination of parental
rights under [§] 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the Family Code”); see also In re A.M.A., No. 13-21-00133-CV,
2021 WL 3777137, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 26, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).

                                                     3
CODE ANN. § 107.013(a)(1)). Thus, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, a

motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals may be premature. Id. Counsel is

permitted to withdraw only for good cause, and counsel’s belief that the client has no

grounds to seek further review from the court of appeals’ decision does not constitute

good cause. Id. Here, counsel’s motion does not show “good cause” for withdrawal,

accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied. See id. 3

                                            IV.      CONCLUSION

        We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                              L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                                                              Justice

Delivered and filed on the
22nd day of June, 2023.

        3   The Texas Supreme Court has noted that, in cases such as this, “appointed counsel’s obligations
[in the supreme court] can be satisfied by filing 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).

                                                        4