in the Interest of D.A.G., R.G., Jr., J.X.G., and S.A.G

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of D.A.G., R.G., Jr., J.X.G., and S.A.G

DecidedMay 3, 2017

Docket04-17-00020-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of D.A.G., R.G., Jr., J.X.G., and S.A.G (in the Interest of D.A.G., R.G., Jr., J.X.G., and S.A.G) 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 D.A.G., R.G., Jr., J.X.G., and S.A.G, (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas May 3, 2017

No. 04-17-00020-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.A.G., R.G., JR., J.X.G., AND S.A.G,

From the 112th Judicial District Court, Sutton County, Texas Trial Court No. 6066 Honorable Pedro Gomez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal involving the termination of parental rights. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, provided appellant with a form for requesting the record, and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1996, no pet.) see also In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at * 4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). To date, appellant has not filed the form provided by his counsel.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before June 2, 2017. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after appellant=s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his appointed counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court. _________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of May, 2017.

___________________________________ 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 May 3, 2017

No. 04-17-00020-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.A.G., R.G., JR., J.X.G., AND S.A.G,

From the 112th Judicial District Court, Sutton County, Texas Trial Court No. 6066 Honorable Pedro Gomez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal involving the termination of parental rights. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, provided appellant with a form for requesting the record, and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1996, no pet.) see also In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at * 4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). To date, appellant has not filed the form provided by his counsel.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before June 2, 2017. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after appellant=s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his appointed counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court. _________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of May, 2017.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of D.A.G., R.G., Jr., J.X.G., and S.A.G, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-dag-rg-jr-jxg-and-sag-texapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack