AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed October 13, 2017.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-00455-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C.L., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. JC-16-00298-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Myers
Mother appeals the trial court’s order appointing Father sole managing conservator and
appointing her possessory conservator of their child. The trial court’s order followed the
provisions of a mediated settlement agreement signed by all the parties and their attorneys. See
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.0071 (West 2014). Mother’s appointed counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that the record does not contain
any reversible error that was preserved for appellate review. Counsel states in the brief that he
served Mother by mail at her last known address with a copy of the brief and advised Mother of
her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. In addition, this Court
provided Mother a copy of the Anders brief and notified her of her right to examine the appellate
record and file a pro se response. Mother did not file a pro se response.
The procedures established in Anders are applicable where, as here, the appellant’s
appointed counsel concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re
D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849–50 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). This Court is not
required to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850
(citing Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827). Instead, our duty is to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds for reversal and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel
may be appointed to address the issues. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850.
In the Anders brief, counsel for Mother presents a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal and concluding that Mother’s
appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We independently reviewed
the entire record and counsel’s Anders brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without
merit. We find nothing in the record that could arguably support the appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Lana Myers/
LANA MYERS
JUSTICE
170455F.P05
–2–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF C.L., A CHILD On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-17-00455-CV Trial Court Cause No. JC-16-00298-X.
Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices
Lang and Stoddart participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 13th day of October, 2017.
–3–
in the Interest of C.L., a Child
Combined Opinion