In the interest of J.M.B., a child Appeal from 118th District Court of Howard County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed June 10, 2021 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-20-00286-CV __________ IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.B., A CHILD On Appeal from the 118th District Court Howard County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 53852 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of J.M.B.’s mother. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2020). The mother 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 presents no issues of arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. 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). In light of a 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. 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 her 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 and motion to withdraw. 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 Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. PER CURIAM June 10, 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.
