In the Interest of W.Y.G.M., A/K/A W.G.G., and J.N.G-A., A/K/A J.A., Children v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In the Interest of W.Y.G.M., A/K/A W.G.G., and J.N.G-A., A/K/A J.A., Children v. the State of Texas

DecidedApril 18, 2023

Docket14-22-00862-CV

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of W.Y.G.M., A/K/A W.G.G., and J.N.G-A., A/K/A J.A., Children v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of W.Y.G.M., A/K/A W.G.G., and J.N.G-A., A/K/A J.A., Children v. the State of Texas) 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 W.Y.G.M., A/K/A W.G.G., and J.N.G-A., A/K/A J.A., Children v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 18, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00862-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF W.Y.G.M. A/K/A W.G.G. AND J.N.G.-A. A/K/A J.A, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 308th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-79963

AND

NO. 14-22-00885-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.G.G. A/K/A J.D.G. AND M.E.G.G. A/K/A M.E.G., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 308th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-18930 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, M.Y.G.M., appeals a final order of termination signed November 10, 2022, terminating her parental rights to the four children who are the subject of these suits.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

On January 4, 2023, appellant was notified of the right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. 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 thirty 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 trial court’s final order is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain.

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

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 18, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00862-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF W.Y.G.M. A/K/A W.G.G. AND J.N.G.-A. A/K/A J.A, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 308th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-79963

AND

NO. 14-22-00885-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.G.G. A/K/A J.D.G. AND M.E.G.G. A/K/A M.E.G., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 308th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-18930 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, M.Y.G.M., appeals a final order of termination signed November 10, 2022, terminating her parental rights to the four children who are the subject of these suits.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

On January 4, 2023, appellant was notified of the right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. 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 thirty 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 trial court’s final order is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In the Interest of W.Y.G.M., A/K/A W.G.G., and J.N.G-A., A/K/A J.A., Children v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-wygm-aka-wgg-and-jng-a-aka-ja-texapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack