in the Interest of K.M.W.H. and B.J.T.H., Jr., Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 31, 2017
• Docket: 11-16-00357-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed March 31, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-16-00357-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.M.W.H. AND B.J.T.H., JR., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C46436

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother and the father of K.M.W.H. and B.J.T.H., Jr. Each parent filed a notice of appeal. The mother has now filed a motion to dismiss her appeal, and the father’s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief. We dismiss the appeal. In her motion to dismiss, the mother states that the parties have reached an agreement regarding the termination of her parental rights and that “this appeal is no longer necessary.” The mother requests that we dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). The father’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 is frivolous and presents no arguable issues of merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In 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 recent 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., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 1, 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. The father’s counsel provided the father with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and an explanatory letter. Counsel also informed the father of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided the father with a prepared motion to file in this court to obtain pro se access to the appellate record. We conclude that the father’s counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. We note that Appellant did not file in this court the motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Nor did the father file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the father’s appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. However, in light 2 of P.M., we deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by the father’s court- appointed counsel. See P.M., 2016 WL 1274748, at *3. We grant the mother’s motion to dismiss, deny the motion to withdraw filed by the father’s counsel, and dismiss the appeal in its entirety.

PER CURIAM

March 31, 2017 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.