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

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 5, 2006
• Docket: 14-05-00628-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00628-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF V.M.B., a child

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 03-00833J

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant, Vernon Brackens, appeals a final decree signed May 12, 2005, terminating his parental rights to the child who is the subject of this suit.  Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial, notice of appeal, and statement of appellate points.  Appellant also filed an affidavit of indigency, and the trial court found appellant indigent and appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).  The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal.  In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). 

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329-30.  More than forty-five days have elapsed and as of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Anderson.