The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of P.P. Appeal from Probate Court No 3 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 11, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00653-CV THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF P.P. On Appeal from Probate Court No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. I230121 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from an order authorizing the administration of psychoactive medication to appellant. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 574.106 (West 2010). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly 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 and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); State ex rel. L.E.H., 228 S.W.3d 219, 220 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, no pet.) (applying Anders procedures to appeal from mental health order). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal, and the appeal is without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Brown. 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.
