In re: L v. & A v.
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- In re: D.A., A.A., L.A. (N.C. Ct. App. 2018)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Respondent appeals from orders terminating her parental rights to the minor children L.V. and A.V. On appeal, Respondent's appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(d) stating that, after a conscientious and thorough review of the record on appeal, he has concluded that the record contains no issue of merit on which to base an argument for relief. 1 N.C. R. App. P.
*929 3.1(d). Respondent's counsel complied with all requirements of Rule 3.1(d), and Respondent did not exercise her right under Rule 3.1(d) to file a pro se brief. No issues have been argued or preserved for review in accordance with our Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2
DISMISSED.
Judges DIETZ and TYSON concur.
In accordance with Rule 3.1(d), appellate counsel provided Respondent with copies of the no-merit brief, trial transcript, and record on appeal and advised her of her right to file a brief with this Court pro se on 11 April 2018.
"Rule 3.1(d) does
not
grant indigent parents the right to receive an
Anders
-type review of the record by our Court, to consider issues not properly raised."
State v. Velasquez-Cardenas
, --- N.C. App. ----, ----,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.