In the interest of C.P.D.W., K.W., C.J.M., and K.D.W., children Appeal from 29th District Court of Palo Pinto County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed August 31, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-17-00092-CV __________ IN THE INTEREST OF C.P.D.W., K.W., C.J.M., AND K.D.W., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C46923 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother of C.P.D.W., K.W., C.J.M., and K.D.W., and the rights of the father of K.D.W. The mother and father both filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. The mother’s court-appointed counsel and the father’s court-appointed counsel have each filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which they professionally and conscientiously examine the record and applicable law and conclude that the respective appeals are frivolous. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light of a recent holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28. The mother’s counsel provided her with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and an explanatory letter. The father’s counsel provided him with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and an explanatory letter. Each counsel also informed his respective client of the right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), each counsel provided his respective client with a prepared motion to file in this court to obtain pro se access to the appellate record. We conclude that Appellants’ counsel have satisfied their duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. We note that Appellant mother did not file in this court the pro se motion for access to the appellate record. Nor did she file a pro se response to her counsel’s Anders brief. We note that Appellant father filed a pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief, and we have reviewed that response. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeals are without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. However, in light of P.M., we deny the motions to withdraw that were filed by Appellants’ court-appointed counsels. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. 2 Counsels’ motions to withdraw are denied, and the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM August 31, 2017 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 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.
