Court Opinion

ID: 9900020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 07:12:11.77355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:58.443339
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed November 16 2023

                                    In The

       Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                 __________

                             No. 11-23-00161-CV
                                 __________

      IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.A., H.A.C.A., AND J.M.J.A.,
                       CHILDREN

                    On Appeal from the 220th District Court
                          Comanche County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. FM00722

                     MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON
      This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the
parental rights of H.M., Appellant-Mother, to her children, M.R.A., H.A.C.A., and
J.M.J.A. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2023). Appellant filed
a notice of appeal. We affirm.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a
supporting brief in which she professionally and conscientiously examines the
record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without
merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
      Appellant’s attorney sent by certified mail to Appellant’s last known address
a copy of the brief and motion, and a letter explaining her right to review the record
and file a pro se response. All were returned as undeliverable. Repeated efforts were
made by this Court to ensure Appellant’s access to the Court and to apprise her of
the pendency of this appeal and of the actions by counsel on appeal. See Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318, 320–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A new address for
Appellant was obtained, and all returned notices were sent to Appellant’s new
address. This Court extended Appellant’s deadline to file a pro se response, and no
response has been filed.
      We conclude Appellant’s counsel has satisfied her duties under Anders,
Schulman, and Kelly. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman,
we have independently reviewed the record in this case, and agree that Appellant’s
appeal is without merit.
      Counsel for Appellant filed a motion to withdraw in addition to her brief. In
light of the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re P.M., we deny the motion to
withdraw because counsel has not shown “good cause” other than the determination
that an appeal would be frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016)
(“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of
additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”). In parental termination
cases, court-appointed counsel’s duty to his or her client generally extends “through
the exhaustion of appeals,” “including the filing of a petition for review” in the Texas
Supreme Court. Id. at 27–28. “[A]ppointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied

                                           2
by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at
27–28.
      Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial
court’s order of termination.

                                                      W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
                                                      JUSTICE

November 16, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                           3