In the Guardianship of Allison Singleton, an Incapacitated Person v. .

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00760-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF Allison SINGLETON, an Incapacitated Person

From the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024-PC2-01625 Honorable Veronica Vasquez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 6, 2026 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED On October 4, 2024, a Bexar County jury found that appellant Allison Singleton was incapacitated; that supports and services available to avoid a guardianship were not feasible; that it was in Singleton’s best interest for a guardian to be appointed and that her rights and property would be protected by the appointment of a guardian; and that the Bexar County Guardianship Program and attorney Dawn Laubach were qualified to act as guardians of Singleton’s person and estate. Additionally, based on stipulations from the parties, the trial court found on the record that alternatives to a guardianship that would avoid the need for a guardianship were not feasible. On October 14, 2024, the trial court signed a judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict and its findings on the record. By separate orders, it appointed the Bexar County Guardianship Program

04-24-00760-CV

and Laubach to act as guardians of Singleton’s person and estate. Singleton timely filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal, Singleton’s court-appointed attorney ad litem, who also represented her at trial, filed a brief in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit, and requests to withdraw as counsel. The brief demonstrates a professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also In re Guardianship of Hahn, 276 S.W.3d 515, 516–17 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.) (applying Anders-style procedures to appeal from an order declaring an individual incapacitated and appointing a guardian). Singleton filed a pro se brief, her guardian ad litem filed an appellee’s brief, and both Singleton and the guardian ad litem filed reply briefs.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefing in this appeal. We find no arguable grounds for appeal exist and have decided the appeal is wholly frivolous. See In re Guardianship of Hahn, 276 S.W.3d at 518. We therefore grant appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice