Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2014

in the Interest of C.C., a Child

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided October 16, 2014

Opinion

NUMBER 13-14-00424-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN THE INTEREST OF C.C., A CHILD

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza Appellant, C.C., appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights with respect to her biological daughter C.C., a minor child.1 We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire

1 We refer to appellant and the minor child by their initials in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 9.8. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2) (providing that, in an appeal arising out of a case in which the termination of parental rights was at issue, “the court must, in its opinion, use an alias to refer to a minor, and if necessary to protect the minor’s identity, to the minor’s parent or other family member”). record and has concluded that “all issues present in this appeal are legally frivolous.” See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Porter v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 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.”).

In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Counsel has informed this Court in writing that he has: (1) notified appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed the appellant of her rights to file a pro se response,2 to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and to seek review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) supplied appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. More than an adequate time has passed, and appellant has filed neither a motion for pro se access to the record nor a pro se response.

2 In the criminal context, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see also In re G.M., No. 13–08–00569–CV, 2009 WL 2547493, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 20, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and we have found no reversible error. 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 it considered the issues raised in the brief 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.” (citations omitted)). We grant the motion to withdraw.

Counsel is hereby ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant, and to advise her of her right to file a petition for review, within five days of the date of this opinion.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35.

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review by the Texas Supreme Court, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for review or file a pro se petition for review. Any petition for review must be filed within 45 days after the date of either this opinion or the last ruling by this Court on all timely filed motions for rehearing or en banc reconsideration. TEX. R. APP. P. 53.7(a). Any petition for review must comply with the requirements of Rule 53.2 of the Texas Rules of DORI CONTRERAS GARZA, Justice

Delivered and filed the 16th day of October, 2014.

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 53.2.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.