IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12-00348-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF S.N. AND A.N., CHILDREN,
From the 74th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-1171-3
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition to terminate
Armando Nevarez’s parental rights to his two children, S.N and A.N. A jury found that
Nevarez’s parental rights should be terminated, and the trial court entered judgment in
accordance with the jury verdict. We affirm.
Nevarez’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently
reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The procedures in Anders are applicable to
appeals from judgments terminating the parent-child relationship. In re E.L.Y., 69
S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. App.─Waco 2002, no pet.).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [PanelOp.]
1978), counsel has discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no reversible
errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he provided
Nevarez with a copy of the Anders brief and informed Nevarez of his right to obtain a
copy of the appellate record. Counsel has also advised Nevarez of his right to file a pro
se brief or response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at
510 n.3. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and Nevarez has not filed a
pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An
appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact."
McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire
record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court's judgment.
Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of
Nevarez is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Nevarez a copy of the opinion and
notify him of his right to file a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See In re
K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
In the Interest of S.N. and A.N. Page 2
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed November 29, 2012
[CV06]
In the Interest of S.N. and A.N. Page 3