In the Interest of D.A.R., A Child--Appeal from 51st District Court of Tom Green County

NUMBER 13-06-262-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN THE INTEREST OF D.A.R., A CHILD
On appeal from the 51st District Court of Tom Green County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Ya ez, Rodriguez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellants, Latasha Marie Rose and Christopher Ford, Sr., to their minor child, D.A.R.

Attorneys for appellants have filed Anders briefs, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and have informed this Court that they have "diligently reviewed the record" and can find no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal of the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); Porter v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). The briefs filed meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. The attorneys state that they have served a copy of their briefs on appellants and informed appellants of their right to file a pro se brief. More than thirty days have passed and no pro se briefs have been filed.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and the briefs and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decree terminating the parental rights of appellants.

In accordance with Anders, appellants' attorneys have asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellants. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant their motions to withdraw. We further order the attorneys to notify appellants of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.2d at 68 n.3 (citing Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam)).

 

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

 

Memorandum opinion delivered and

filed this the 19th day of October, 2006.