No. 13-17-00174-CV.


Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi, Edinburg.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Rebecca L. Safavi , Robert Forte, Jr. , for Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee.

J. Martin Clauder , for Children, Ad Litem.

Gregory D. Sherwood , L.M.J., for L.M.J., Appellant.

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa.


Memorandum Opinion by Justice LETICIA HINOJOSA.

Appellant L.M.J. appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor children, L.S.A.C.J. and L.D.D.C.J.1 Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief stating that the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Porter v. Tex. Dept. of Protective & Regulatory Services, 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (permitting appointed counsel in a parental termination appeal to file a brief in compliance with Anders). We affirm.


Appellant's counsel has filed a brief stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("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, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

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, 319-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant's counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has also informed this Court that appellant has been (1) notified that counsel has filed an Anders brief; (2) provided with a copy of the Anders brief; (3) informed of her right to file a pro se response and review the record preparatory to filing that response;2 and (4) provided with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319-20; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. A reasonable amount of time has passed, and we have not received a pro se response from appellant.


Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief is filed. After reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed those issues on appeal. Id.

We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief, and we have found no reversible error. See id. at 827-28 ("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.


Appellant's counsel has not asked this Court for permission to withdraw as appellate counsel. This is consistent with the Texas Supreme Court's holding that the (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights extends to "all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review." In re P.M., No. 15-0171, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (per curiam). Counsel's obligation to appellant has not yet been discharged. See id. If appellant, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court "a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief." See id.


We affirm the trial court's judgment.


1. We refer to appellant and the minor children by their initials in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
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


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases