in the Interest of R.C., J.C., and E.C., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of R.C., J.C., and E.C., Children

DecidedJanuary 12, 2023

Docket11-22-00239-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of R.C., J.C., and E.C., Children (in the Interest of R.C., J.C., and E.C., Children) 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 R.C., J.C., and E.C., Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed January 12, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00239-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.C., J.C., AND E.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 35th District Court Brown County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV2105176

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of R.C., J.C., and E.C.’s father. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West 2022). The father filed a notice of appeal. We affirm. Appellant’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 presents no arguable issues and is therefore frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and 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 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 the motion to withdraw. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel also provided Appellant with (1) a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record and (2) the mailing address of this court should he desire to file the motion for pro se access. Counsel also informed Appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. 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 frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

PER CURIAM

January 12, 2023 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

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

Opinion filed January 12, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00239-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.C., J.C., AND E.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 35th District Court Brown County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV2105176

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of R.C., J.C., and E.C.’s father. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West 2022). The father filed a notice of appeal. We affirm. Appellant’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 presents no arguable issues and is therefore frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and 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 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 the motion to withdraw. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel also provided Appellant with (1) a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record and (2) the mailing address of this court should he desire to file the motion for pro se access. Counsel also informed Appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. 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 frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

PER CURIAM

January 12, 2023 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of R.C., J.C., and E.C., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-rc-jc-and-ec-children-texapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack