In the Interest of A.M., a child--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County

NUMBER 13-06-264-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN THE INTEREST OF A.M., A CHILD
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellant, the biological mother of A.M., a child, under chapter 161 of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 161.001(Vernon Supp. 2006), 161.003 (Vernon 2002). We affirm.

At the conclusion of a jury trial, the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that appellant committed one or more of the specified acts or omissions set out in section 161.001 of the Texas Family Code and that it was in the best interest of A.M. to terminate the parent-child relationship between A.M. and appellant. See id. 161.001. A decree to that effect was entered by the court, and this appeal ensued.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he has found an absence of meritorious grounds for appeal and further has submitted that the basis of any appeal of this case would be frivolous in nature. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal of the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); Porter v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In compliance with Anders, counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record and raised and reviewed seven legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence issues as possible grounds for our review, thus, referring this Court to what, in his opinion, are all issues which might arguably support an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 812.

Counsel has informed this Court that: (1) he has examined the record and applicable authorities and finds no grounds for appeal; (2) he set forth issues which might arguably support an appeal; (3) he forwarded a copy of the brief to appellant with a letter informing her of the filing of the brief and his request to withdraw as counsel; and (4) he informed appellant of her right to review the record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); High, 573 S.W.2d at 813. Counsel has also informed this Court that he forwarded a copy of the record to appellant. On March 13, 2007, appellant's pro se brief and outline were filed with this Court. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 813.

II. Independent Review

The Texas Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record for reversible error and have considered the issues raised in appellant's Anders brief and in appellant's pro se brief. (1) We have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 ("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 requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.").

III. Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Additionally, in accordance with Anders, appellant's counsel has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant counsel's request to withdraw. We further order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.2d at 68 n.3 (citing Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc) (per curiam)).

 

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 29th day of March, 2007.

1. Appellant provided several record cites involving exchanges between the trial court and a juror, and the trial court and counsel. However, she did not develop her contentions related to the exchanges. Appellant objected that the exchanges were an "immidiate [sic] and imminent danger to United States minor; failure of due process of law; lower legal sham of trial by equity or preponerance [sic]; clear, convincing heinious [sic] court affiliation with a party." Citing only to "sixty-four 2004 Texas Family Code Statutes," appellant provided this Court with no citations to other authorities in support of her arguments. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h) (setting out that we will only consider contentions that are supported by clear and concise arguments with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record).