in the Interest of X.I.M., a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of X.I.M., a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided September 18, 2014·No. 14-14-00344-CV·Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 18, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00344-CV NO. 14-14-00351-CV NO. 14-14-00352-CV NO. 14-14-00368-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF X.I.M., P.M., E.C., D.C., E.C., AND Y.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 312th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 2002-50811, 2011-10644, 2012-42185, & 2011-01184J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Doana Montoya, appeals three final decrees signed April 28, 2014, terminating her parental rights to X.I.M., P.M., E.C., and D.C. Appellant further appeals a judgment signed April 28, 2014, appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services managing conservator of E.C. and Y.C. Appellant filed a timely notice of 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 (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.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

On July 14, 2014, a copy of the record and counsel’s brief were delivered to appellant and appellant was notified of the right to 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 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 judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.

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

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 18, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00344-CV NO. 14-14-00351-CV NO. 14-14-00352-CV NO. 14-14-00368-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF X.I.M., P.M., E.C., D.C., E.C., AND Y.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 312th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 2002-50811, 2011-10644, 2012-42185, & 2011-01184J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Doana Montoya, appeals three final decrees signed April 28, 2014, terminating her parental rights to X.I.M., P.M., E.C., and D.C. Appellant further appeals a judgment signed April 28, 2014, appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services managing conservator of E.C. and Y.C. Appellant filed a timely notice of 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 (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.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

On July 14, 2014, a copy of the record and counsel’s brief were delivered to appellant and appellant was notified of the right to 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 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 judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.

in the Interest of X.I.M., a Child, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

in the Interest of X.I.M., a Child (in the Interest of X.I.M., a Child) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related