In the interest of B.W.H., a child Appeal from 29th District Court of Palo Pinto County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed March 14, 2019 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-18-00264-CV __________ IN THE INTEREST OF B.W.H., A CHILD On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C47625 MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of B.W.H.’s mother and father. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2018). The father filed a notice of appeal. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets 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. Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed Appellant of his 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), counsel provided Appellant with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. We note that Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by the father’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, we deny the motion to withdraw as counsel, and we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. PER CURIAM March 14, 2019 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1 Willson, J., not participating. 1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment. 2
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.
