In the interest of J.B. III, a child Appeal from 326th District Court of Taylor County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed April 15, 2021 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-20-00243-CV __________ IN THE INTEREST OF J.B. III, A CHILD On Appeal from the 326th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 9725-CX MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of J.B. III’s father. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2020). The father filed a notice of appeal. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit and is therefore groundless. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and 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). Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the record in this cause and informed Appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. 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. Although counsel has not filed a motion to withdraw in this court, which may have been premature if it had been filed in this court, he does broach the issue of withdrawal in his brief. We note, however, that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing 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). We affirm the trial court’s order of termination. PER CURIAM April 15, 2021 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 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.
