in the Interest of L.M.-A., Jr., a Child
This text of in the Interest of L.M.-A., Jr., a Child (in the Interest of L.M.-A., Jr., a Child) 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
i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00331-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.-A., Jr.
From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007-PA-02002 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 29, 2008
AFFIRMED
Carolina S. seeks to appeal the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to her minor
child, L.M.-A., Jr., and challenges the trial court’s finding that her appeal is frivolous. See TEX .
FAM . CODE ANN . § 263.405(d)(3), (g) (Vernon Supp. 2008). We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
Carolina’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a brief representing that he has
conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined the appellate points are without
merit. Counsel concludes the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirement 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, order) (applying Anders procedure to appeals from orders 04-08-00331-CV
terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept.
10, 2003, no pet.). In compliance with the procedure in Anders, counsel delivered a copy of
counsel’s brief to Carolina, who was advised of her right to examine the record and to file her own
pro se brief if she disagreed with counsel’s determination regarding the merits of the appeal. See
Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). No pro se brief
was filed. Carolina’s attorney has also filed a motion to withdraw.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and counsel’s brief, and we agree that the appellate
points do not present a substantial question for appellate review, and are therefore frivolous. See
TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE ANN . § 13.003(b) (Vernon 2002); see also TEX . FAM . CODE ANN .
§ 263.405(d)(3) (incorporating section 13.003(b) by reference). Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment, and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85-86.
Phylis J. Speedlin, 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 L.M.-A., Jr., a Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-lm-a-jr-a-child-texapp-2008.