in the Interest of F.A.L. III and J.E.A., Children

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 17, 2018 No. 04-18-00398-CV IN THE INTEREST OF F.A.L. III AND J.E.A., CHILDREN, From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA01098 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding ORDER This is an accelerated appeal involving the termination of parental rights. On August 6, 2018, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief, provided appellant with a form for requesting the record, and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.) see also In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at * 4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). To date, appellant has not filed the form provided by her counsel. If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that she do so on or before September 17, 2018. At this time, the State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same). We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, her appointed counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court. _________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of August, 2018. ___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE, Clerk of Court