in the Interest of N.F.M. and S.R.M.

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 21, 2018

No. 04-18-00475-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.F.M. AND S.R.M.,

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA00070 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court’s final order terminating appellant’s parental rights. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there is no meritorious issue to raise on appeal. See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944 (Tex. App.— San Antonio, May 21, 2003, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).

When counsel “cannot, in good faith, advance any arguable grounds of error,” counsel’s Anders brief must “contain a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.” High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief must refer the court to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; discuss the evidence adduced at trial; supply the court with ready references to the record; and supply the court with appropriate citations to legal authorities. Id. at 812-13. “The [Anders] brief must demonstrate that counsel has conscientiously examined the record and determined that the appeal is so frivolous that the appellant is not entitled to counsel on appeal.” Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no writ).

The brief filed by appointed counsel on behalf of appellant does not meet these requirements. Specifically, the brief does not state whether and why there was any preserved, reversible error or other reasons to reverse the trial court’s judgment. The brief contains no legal analysis and simply concludes, “Appellant’s attorney has diligently reviewed the record and cannot find any point of error upon which a non-frivolous appeal might be based.” In sum, the brief does not contain a professional evaluation of the record and does not demonstrate there is no arguable issue for appeal.

We therefore strike counsel’s Anders brief and order appellant’s brief redrawn. We order the redrawn brief due October 8, 2018. We further order counsel to notify appellant that the Anders brief has been stricken and there is no current deadline for filing a pro se brief.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE, Clerk of Court