in the Interest of L.A.S. and A.L.S., Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 14, 2018
• Docket: 11-17-00351-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed June 14, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-17-00351-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.A.S. AND A.L.S., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 326th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 8296-CX

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court awarded permanent managing conservatorship of L.A.S. and A.L.S. to the Department of Family and Protective Services. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.404 (West Supp. 2017). The children’s father filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. 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., 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 an explanatory letter. Counsel also informed Appellant 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 Appellant with a copy of the appellate record. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. 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 without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

PER CURIAM

June 14, 2018 Panel consists of: Willson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.