NUMBER 13-14-00686-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.T. III, A CHILD

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez Appellant J.T. appeals the trial court's order terminating his parental rights with respect to his child, J.L.T. III.1 We affirm.

I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS J.T.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in which she states that “[a]fter diligent search, counsel has determined that the appeal in this cause is [sic] has no basis reflected in the record and thus is without merit.” See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 774–45 (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.”). Having so concluded, counsel has requested that this Court permit her to withdraw as counsel.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 774–75.

In her brief, counsel identifies the following issues: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial supported the termination of the parent-child relationship between J.T. and J.L.T. III because of J.T.’s conviction for the aggravated sexual assault of a child, see TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(L) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.); (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that termination is in J.L.T. III’s best interest, see id. § 161.001(2); and (3) whether there were any other meritorious grounds for appeal. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, counsel concludes that, in her opinion, “there are no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated.”

More specifically, counsel sets out that there is no jurisdictional error, no harmful evidentiary or procedural error, and no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Counsel also concluded that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the termination of J.T.’s parental rights to J.L.T. III.

Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no non-frivolous grounds for advancing an appeal.

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“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.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), J.T.'s counsel has discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no reversible errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has demonstrated that she has complied with the requirements of Anders by examining the record and finding no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. In further compliance with the requirements of Anders, counsel has (1) served a copy of the brief, the appellate record, and her request to withdraw on J.T.; and (2) informed J.T. of his right to file a pro se response, review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek review if the court of appeals concludes that the appeal is frivolous.2 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 774;

Rather, any 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) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).

3 Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–19; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate time has passed, and J.T. has not filed a pro se response.3 III. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all proceedings to determine whether the case 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, *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 20, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). We have reviewed the entire record, the appellant’s brief filed in this case, and the response filed by appellee, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal for J.T. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826– (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 requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of J.T. to J.L.T. III.

IV. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, counsel for J.T. asks this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) ("If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing

Counsel requested an extension of time for J.T. to file his pro se brief in this parental-termination case. We denied the request and ordered any pro se brief filed by April 13, 2015. 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 counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, we order counsel to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to her client and to advise him of his right to pursue a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.4 See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ Justice Delivered and filed the 23rd day of April, 2015.