NUMBER 13-12-00741-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.G., A CHILD
On appeal from the 156th District Court
of San Patricio County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes
Appellant, I.G., appeals from a trial court judgment terminating his parental rights
to his daughter, J.L.G. The case was tried to a jury which found appellant: (1)
knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings
which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child; (2) engaged in conduct
or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the
physical or emotional well-being of the child; (3) failed to comply with provisions of a court
order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return
of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of
the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services for not less than nine months as a
result of the child’s removal from the parent; (4) has been convicted or has been placed
on community supervision, including deferred adjudication community supervision, for
being criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child or adjudicated for
conduct that caused the death or serious injury of a child and that would constitute a
violation of section 22.011 of the penal code; and (5) knowingly engaged in criminal
conduct that resulted in the parent’s conviction of an offense and confinement or
imprisonment and inability to care for the child for not less than two years from the date of
the filing of the petition. The jury also found that termination of appellant’s parental rights
would be in the child’s best interest. The trial court’s termination order reflects each of
these reasons for termination. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), the court-appointed
attorney for appellant filed a brief and motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his
review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated.
Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief
need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must
provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights
2
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.). Appellant’s attorney has so concluded.
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), appellant’s attorney carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. The attorney informed this
Court that he (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on
appeal; (2) served copies of his brief and motion to withdraw on appellant; and
(3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed. Appellant has
not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988). We reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and found nothing that
would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion
that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible
error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no reversible error in the
record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
3
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney asked this Court for permission to
withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must
withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, the attorney is
ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to
advise him of his right to file a petition for review.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006).
GREGORY T. PERKES
Justice
Delivered and filed the
14th day of March, 2013.
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this
case by the Supreme Court of Texas, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for review or file a
pro se petition for review. Any petition for review must be filed within forty-five days after the date of either
this opinion or the last ruling by this Court on all timely filed motions for rehearing or en banc
reconsideration. 53.7(a). Any petition for review must comply with the requirements of rule 53.2 of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 53.2.
4