Court Opinion

ID: 9397757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 09:10:19.104845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:27.339314
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-23-00028-CV

                     IN THE INTEREST OF J.G., A CHILD

                           From the 361st District Court
                               Brazos County, Texas
                         Trial Court No. 21-003101-CV-361

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Mother appeals from a final order terminating her rights to one child. Mother’s

attorney has now filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief asserting that he

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

generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.

App.—Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders to termination appeal).

       Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting 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) (“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.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Mother’s attorney has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court’s order of termination. Counsel has informed us that

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

and (2) served Mother with a copy of the brief and instructions on how to obtain the

record. By letter, we informed Mother of her right to review the record and to file a

response to the Anders brief, but she has not done so. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly v.

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3;

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Schulman,

252 S.W.3d at 408–09.

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

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

U.S. 75, 80 (1988). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks

any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10 (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 requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Specifically, counsel’s brief explains—and

our review of the record confirms—that the final order of termination includes terms

consistent with those in a Rule 11 agreement that Mother entered into knowingly and

In the Interest of J.G., a Child                                                      Page 2
voluntarily. There is accordingly no basis for appeal. See, e.g., In re P.H., No. 05-16-

00961-CV, 2017 WL 462355, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 2, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(affirming, in context of Anders brief, final conservatorship order where trial court

“found it was in the best interest of the children to follow the Rule 11 agreement”).

        For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. We

also remind Appellant’s appointed appellate 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) (per curiam); see also TEX.

FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016; In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet.

denied). We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

                                                 MATT JOHNSON
                                                 Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed May 24, 2023
[CV06]

In the Interest of J.G., a Child                                                        Page 3