in the Interest of D.Y.P., a Child

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00394-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.Y.P., A CHILD,

From the 77th District Court Limestone County, Texas Trial Court No. CPS-221-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant S.V. appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to

D.Y.P. S.V.’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to

withdraw. Appointed counsel asserts that she has diligently reviewed the available

record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders to termination appeal).

Although informed of his right to do so, S.V. did not file a pro se brief or response

to the Anders brief.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . .

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is

“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy

v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440

(1988).

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find

this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the trial court’s order of termination and

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed; Motion granted Opinion delivered and filed May 30, 2012 [CV06]

In the Interest of D.Y.P. Page 2