in the Interest of B.C., P.C., Jr., and A.C.

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of B.C., P.C., Jr., and A.C.

DecidedJanuary 8, 2015

Docket04-14-00744-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of B.C., P.C., Jr., and A.C. (in the Interest of B.C., P.C., Jr., and A.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

in the Interest of B.C., P.C., Jr., and A.C., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 7, 2015

No. 04-14-00744-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.C., P.C., JR., AND A.C.,

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-PA-01143 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment terminating appellant, Raquel Paredez’s parental rights. On December 15, 2014, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel responded by filing a motion to withdraw and brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See In re R. R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944 (Tex. App.–San Antonio, May 21, 2003, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.–San Antonio, Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Counsel states he has informed appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, July 23, 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel also provided appellant with an “Appellant’s Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record.” The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief.

Appellant has not requested a copy of the appellate record. Therefore, appellant’s pro se brief is due in this court no later than February 5, 2015.

We order that the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel is held in abeyance pending further order of the court.

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant and all counsel.

___________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 7, 2015

No. 04-14-00744-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.C., P.C., JR., AND A.C.,

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-PA-01143 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment terminating appellant, Raquel Paredez’s parental rights. On December 15, 2014, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel responded by filing a motion to withdraw and brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See In re R. R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944 (Tex. App.–San Antonio, May 21, 2003, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.–San Antonio, Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Counsel states he has informed appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, July 23, 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel also provided appellant with an “Appellant’s Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record.” The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief.

Appellant has not requested a copy of the appellate record. Therefore, appellant’s pro se brief is due in this court no later than February 5, 2015.

We order that the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel is held in abeyance pending further order of the court.

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant and all counsel.

___________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of B.C., P.C., Jr., and A.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-bc-pc-jr-and-ac-texapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack