Court Opinion

ID: 9352635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 00:17:28.276842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:20.580123
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2023.

                                      In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-22-00533-CV

              IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.T. A/K/A A.T., CHILD

                    On Appeal from the 315th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. 2018-04475JA

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an appeal from a final decree terminating the parental rights of T.T.
(mother) and K.M. (father) to A.L.T. a/k/a A.T., child. Both T.T. and K.M filed
notices of appeal, and the trial court appointed each of them an attorney to
prosecute their respective appeals.

      Each of the court-appointed appellate attorneys has filed a brief meeting the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of
parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes there are no non-frivolous
issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

      Both appellants were notified of their right to file a pro se response to their
lawyer’s Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329-30. T.T. filed a letter in response. K.M. did
not file a response. The Department of Family and Protective Services has waived
its right to respond.

      We have carefully reviewed the record, counsels’ briefs, and T.T.’s
response, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and
without merit. We find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the briefs
and response would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                          PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Wilson.

                                         2