Opinion
04-23-00487-CV
06-23-2023
IN THE INTEREST OF A.Z., AND Z.Z., Children
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-PA-00654 Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding
ORDER
LIZA A. RODRIGUEZ, JUSTICE
Appellant E.A.Z. appeals the trial court's termination of his parental rights. E.A.Z.'s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. In In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.), we held that in parental-termination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill his ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent procedures for all indigent litigants.
In compliance with well-established Anders procedures, E.A.Z.'s attorney has served a copy of the brief on him, has informed E.A.Z. of his right to review the record and file his own brief, has provided E.A.Z. a copy of a form pro se motion for access to the appellate record, and has explained to E.A.Z. the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
If E.A.Z. desires a copy of the appellate record, he must file a pro se motion for access to the appellate record in this Court on or before July 5, 2023. If E.A.Z. desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so on or before July 26, 2023. See Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
If E.A.Z. files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after E.A.Z.'s pro se brief is filed in this Court.
We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by E.A.Z.'s counsel to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of this Court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).