S. J. v. The State of Texas Appeal from Probate Court No 3 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued February 27, 2025 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00722-CV ——————————— STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF S.J. On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. MHCM-2024-000147 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal of the trial court’s order that psychoactive medication be involuntarily administered to appellant, S.J. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).1 We affirm. Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record and that she is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Appellant’s counsel has certified that she mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of her right to file a response and to access the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant did not file a pro se response. 1 The Anders procedure is appropriate when court-appointed counsel concludes an appeal from an order to administer psychoactive medication is frivolous. See State for Best Interest & Prot. of M.R., No. 12-19-00228-CV, 2020 WL 500772, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Jan. 31, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re State ex rel. Best Interest & Prot. of J.W., No. 12-18-00077-CV, 2018 WL 4474309, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.– Tyler Sept. 19, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); State ex rel. Best Int. & Prot. of R.R., No. 04-10-00337-CV, 2010 WL 3576509, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007 Sept. 15, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op); cf. In re State ex rel. Best Interest & Prot. of L.E.H., 228 S.W.3d 219, 220 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, no pet.) (concluding that Anders procedure is appropriate when court-appointed counsel concludes appeal from involuntary commitment order is frivolous); cf. also In re T.R.G., No. 07–05– 0179–CV, 2005 WL 2152915, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept.7, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re E.M., No. 03-96-00703-CV, 1997 WL 217186, at *2 (Tex. App.— Austin May 1, 1997, no writ) (op., not designated for publication). 2 We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. Despite our finding no reversible error, we deny counsel’s request to withdraw. See State for Best Interest & Prot. of M.R., No. 12-19-00228-CV, 2020 WL 500772, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (denying counsel’s motion to withdraw following analysis under Anders in case involving administration of psychoactive medication) (citing In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27– 28 (Tex. 2016)). In In re P.M., the Texas Supreme Court held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” 520 S.W.3d at 27. The Texas Supreme Court further stated that “counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review from the court of appeals’ decision” is not “good 3 cause” sufficient to permit counsel’s withdrawal. Id. We follow our sister court in applying In re P.M. to the involuntary administration of psychoactive medication. After disposition by the court of appeals, an appeal of an order to administer psychoactive medication can be made to the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 574.070(e), 574.108(a). Applying In re P.M. to the circumstances of this case, we conclude that counsel’s obligation to S.J. has not yet been discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28; see also State for Best Interest & Prot. of M.R., 2020 WL 500772, at *2. If S.J., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28; cf. A.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-16-00543-CV, 2016 WL 5874880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil. 4
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.
