in the Interest of C.M.A.S., a Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 13, 2020
• Docket: 11-20-00057-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed August 13, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-20-00057-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M.A.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 318th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. FM 65,556

MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of C.M.A.S.’s mother and father. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2019). The father filed a notice of appeal. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light of a holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28. Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the record in this cause and informed Appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. We note that Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw. In his pro se response, Appellant questions the assistance that he received from his appointed attorneys. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

PER CURIAM August 13, 2020 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1 Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment. 2