in the Interest of M.N.B., a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of M.N.B., a Child

DecidedAugust 1, 2022

Docket04-22-00393-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of M.N.B., a Child (in the Interest of M.N.B., 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.

Bluebook

in the Interest of M.N.B., a Child, (Tex. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 1, 2022

No. 04-22-00393-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.N.B., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021PA00596 Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

ORDER Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying the Anders procedure in a criminal case to an appeal from the termination of parental rights). Counsel certifies he has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, she must do so within twenty (20) days from the date of this order.

The Department has filed a response waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than twenty (20) days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

We instruct the Clerk of this Court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, her counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.

It is so ORDERED on August 1, 2022.

PER CURIAM ATTESTED TO: ________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT

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

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 1, 2022

No. 04-22-00393-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.N.B., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021PA00596 Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

ORDER Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying the Anders procedure in a criminal case to an appeal from the termination of parental rights). Counsel certifies he has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, she must do so within twenty (20) days from the date of this order.

The Department has filed a response waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than twenty (20) days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

We instruct the Clerk of this Court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, her counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.

It is so ORDERED on August 1, 2022.

PER CURIAM ATTESTED TO: ________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of M.N.B., a Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-mnb-a-child-texapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack