In the Interest of J.C.J.-K., a Child v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In the Interest of J.C.J.-K., a Child v. the State of Texas

DecidedMay 30, 2024

Docket11-24-00062-CV

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of J.C.J.-K., a Child v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of J.C.J.-K., a Child v. the State of Texas) 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 J.C.J.-K., a Child v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed May 30, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-24-00062-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.J.-K., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 446th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. E-23-017-PC

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother of J.C.J.-K. 1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 0F

(West Supp. 2023). The mother 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 arguable issues and is therefore frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In

1 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the unknown father. No appeal has been filed on the unknown father’s behalf. 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, along with copies of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record. Counsel also informed Appellant of her 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. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406–409; see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We note that Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. 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.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS May 30, 2024 JUSTICE Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

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

Opinion filed May 30, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-24-00062-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.J.-K., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 446th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. E-23-017-PC

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother of J.C.J.-K. 1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 0F

(West Supp. 2023). The mother 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 arguable issues and is therefore frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In

1 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the unknown father. No appeal has been filed on the unknown father’s behalf. 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, along with copies of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record. Counsel also informed Appellant of her 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. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406–409; see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We note that Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. 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.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS May 30, 2024 JUSTICE Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In the Interest of J.C.J.-K., a Child v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-jcj-k-a-child-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack