IN THE INTEREST OF D. Z. W., P. Z. C., AND Z. T. C., CHILDRENAppeal from County Court at Law of Aransas County (memorandum opinion by chief justice valdez)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-13-00247-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN THE INTEREST OF D. Z. W., P. Z. C., AND Z. T. C., CHILDREN On appeal from the County Court at Law of Aransas County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez Appellant, A.S., challenges the trial court s order granting the petition to terminate her parental rights to her children, D.Z.W., P.Z.C., and Z.T.C., filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department ). Concluding that the appeal in her case would be frivolous, counsel for appellant has filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm. I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant s courtappointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that he conducted a diligent review of the record and applicable case law and has concluded, in [his] professional opinion, that the record reflects no reversible error or ground upon which a meritorious appeal can be predicated. The Anders procedure applies to parental termination cases. Porter v. Tex. Dep t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) ( [W]hen appointed counsel represents an indigent client in a parental termination appeal and concludes that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, counsel may file an Anders-type brief. ); see also In re B.W., No. 13-13-00033-CV, 2013 WL 1092215, at *1 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi March 12, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); Hyden v. Tex. Dep t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 1306-314-CV, 2006 WL 3824938, at *1 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi Dec. 29, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Counsel s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ( In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance arguable points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities. ) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343 44 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant s counsel has carefully discussed why, under 2 controlling authority, there are no reversible errors in the trial court s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no meritorious issues which may be raised upon appeal ; (2) served a copy of the Anders brief and counsel s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW 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). After reviewing counsel s brief and the entire record, we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ( Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. ); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s order of termination. 1 In the criminal context, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696 97 (Tex. App. Waco 1997, no pet.)). 3 III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, appellant s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 80 (Tex. App. Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that [i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous. ) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel s motion to withdraw that was carried with the case on July 9, 2013. Within five days of the date of this Court s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this Court s opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise her of her right to file a petition for further review with the Texas Supreme Court. 2 See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). ____________________ ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice Delivered and filed the 18th day of October, 2013. 2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Supreme Court of Texas, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for review or file a pro se petition for review. Any petition for review must be filed within forty-five days after the date of either this opinion or the last ruling by this Court on all timely filed motions for rehearing or en banc reconsideration. TEX. R. APP. P. 53.7(a). Any petition for review must comply with the requirements of rule 53.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 53.2. 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.