in the Interest of D.T. Jr., a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of D.T. Jr., a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 16, 2015·No. 14-14-01003-CV·Published

Opinion

Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 16, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-01003-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.T. JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010-00284JA

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, A.G., appeals a final decree signed November 21, 2014, terminating her parental rights to the child who is the subject of this suit. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329-30. In addition, a copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant and she was advised that if she wished to file a response to counsel’s Anders brief, any response was required to be filed on or before April 6, 2015. No pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.

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

Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 16, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-01003-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.T. JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010-00284JA

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, A.G., appeals a final decree signed November 21, 2014, terminating her parental rights to the child who is the subject of this suit. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329-30. In addition, a copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant and she was advised that if she wished to file a response to counsel’s Anders brief, any response was required to be filed on or before April 6, 2015. No pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.

in the Interest of D.T. Jr., a Child, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

in the Interest of D.T. Jr., a Child (in the Interest of D.T. Jr., a Child) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related