TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00805-CV
J. C., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 18-0024-CPS425, THE HONORABLE BETSY F. LAMBETH, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant J.C. appeals from the district court’s order appointing J.C. possessory
conservator of his son, L.C., and appointing L.C.’s maternal grandmother, M.O., permanent
managing conservator with the right to determine the terms of J.C.’s access to L.C. in person as
well as through telephone calls and letters.1 J.C.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an
Anders brief, concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M., 530 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam)
(approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental rights because it
“strikes an important balance between the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel on appeal
1
J.C. is currently confined in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice and is serving a 25-year sentence imposed in May 2017 after J.C. was convicted
of a felony.
and counsel’s obligation not to prosecute frivolous appeals” (citations omitted)).2 The brief meets
the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v.
Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin
2005, pet. denied). J.C.’s counsel has certified to this Court that he provided J.C. with a copy of
the Anders brief and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se
brief. J.C. requested a copy of the appellate record, which this Court provided to him, but did
not file a pro se brief.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record
to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 76, 80 (1988);
Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief
submitted on J.C.’s behalf. We have found nothing in the record that might arguably support an
appeal, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order.3
2
Although the Department ultimately did not seek termination of J.C.’s parental rights,
the Department’s original petition sought that relief in the alternative to reunification, and the
trial court appointed counsel to represent J.C. After trial, the court found that J.C. remained
entitled to a court-appointed attorney on appeal and appointed appellate counsel.
3
Counsel’s obligation to J.C. has not yet been discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24,
27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If J.C., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for
review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that
satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27-28.
2
__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: April 24, 2020
3