MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-06-00846-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF I.C.
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2006-0089-CV
Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 6, 2007
AFFIRMED
Gary Crayton has filed an appeal from the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, I.C. An appellant must file, not later than the fifteenth day after a final order is signed, a statement "of the point or points on which the party intends to appeal." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.405(b) (Vernon Supp. 2006). Here, the judgment was entered November 22, 2006, and the notice of appeal was filed December 1, 2006. Appellant did not file a timely motion for new trial or a statement of the point or points on which he intended to appeal. This court "may not consider any issue that was not specifically presented to the trial court in a timely filed statement of the points on which the party intends to appeal or in a statement combined with a motion for new trial." Id. § 263.405(i).
Appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief, in which he states the only grounds that could be raised would challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. "For purposes of . . . subsection [263.405], a claim that a judicial decision is contrary to the evidence or that the evidence is factually or legally insufficient is not sufficiently specific to preserve an issue for appeal." Id. Appellant's counsel did not raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See In re K.K., 180 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. App.--Waco 2005, order) (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel may be raised for the first time on appeal), disp. on merits, No. 10-04-00303-CV, 2006 WL 561820 (Tex. App.--Waco Mar. 8, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.). This court allowed appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief; however, no brief has been filed.
Although the statute does not terminate our jurisdiction over the appeal, in a situation such as this, where no statement of points exists, under the express terms of the statute, there is no contention of error that can be raised that we may consider on appeal. See In re S.E., 203 S.W.3d 14, 15 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2006, no pet.). Accordingly, we therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.
PER CURIAM