In the Interest of S.N. and A.N., Children--Appeal from 74th District Court of McLennan County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12-00348-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.N. AND A.N., CHILDREN, From the 74th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-1171-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION The Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition to terminate Armando Nevarez s parental rights to his two children, S.N and A.N. A jury found that Nevarez s parental rights should be terminated, and the trial court entered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. We affirm. Nevarez s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The procedures in Anders are applicable to appeals from judgments terminating the parent-child relationship. S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. App. Waco 2002, no pet.). In re E.L.Y., 69 In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [PanelOp.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no reversible errors in the trial court s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he provided Nevarez with a copy of the Anders brief and informed Nevarez of his right to obtain a copy of the appellate record. Counsel has also advised Nevarez of his right to file a pro se brief or response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and Nevarez has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Nevarez is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Nevarez a copy of the opinion and notify him of his right to file a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). In the Interest of S.N. and A.N. Page 2 AL SCOGGINS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed November 29, 2012 [CV06] In the Interest of S.N. and A.N. Page 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
