in the Interest of J.R.L., Children
This text of in the Interest of J.R.L., Children (in the Interest of J.R.L., Children) 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.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00674-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.L., et al., Children
From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA00631 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 13, 2019
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from the trial court’s Order of Termination in which the trial court
terminated Appellant’s parental rights. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief and
motion to withdraw, concluding the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL
21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying Anders
procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). 1 Counsel provided Appellant with a copy
of the brief. Appellant was informed of her right to review the record and advised of her right to
1 The brief in this case was filed prior to this court’s opinion in In re N.F.M., No. 04-18-00475-CV, 2018 WL 6624409, at *2-4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio December 19, 2018) (denying motion for en banc reconsideration of order striking Anders brief). 04-18-00674-CV
file a pro se brief. The State waived its right to file an appellee’s brief unless Appellant filed a pro
se brief. Appellant has not requested the record or filed a brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without
merit. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no writ). The
judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because counsel
does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Interest of J.R.L., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-jrl-children-texapp-2019.