IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-20-00211-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.F., A CHILD
From the 74th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019-2023-3
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, R.F., challenges the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to
his child, K.L.F. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief,
asserting that she has diligently reviewed the record and that, in her opinion, the appeal
is frivolous. See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 493
(1967); see In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order)
(applying Anders to termination appeals).
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief
and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that her review of the record yielded
no 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) (en banc).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there
are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court
that she has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on
appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant; and
(3) provided appellant with a copy of the record and informed him of his right to file a
pro se response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 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, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 409.
In the Interest of K.L.F., a child Page 2
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record
and counsel’s brief and have 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.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. In addition, we
remind appellant’s appointed appellate counsel that if appellant, after consulting with
counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file
with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for
an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016); see In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d
531, 535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2)
(West Supp. 2018).
In the Interest of K.L.F., a child Page 3
JOHN E. NEILL
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 4, 2020
[CV06]
In the Interest of K.L.F., a child Page 4