Opinion
No. 11-14-00009-CV
06-05-2014
IN THE INTEREST OF C.E.C., K.E.V., AND A.R.R., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 70th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. A-3177-PC
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of the mother and the fathers of C.E.C., K.E.V., and A.R.R. The mother filed a notice of appeal; the fathers did not. We dismiss the appeal.
The mother's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). In this regard, the practice recognized in Anders for court-appointed counsel to seek a withdrawal from a frivolous appeal applies to parental termination proceedings involving appointed counsel. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
Appellant's counsel has certified to this court that Appellant no longer lives at the address provided to counsel, that Appellant left no forwarding address, and that Appellant's current address is unknown. Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel has contacted Appellant's trial counsel in an attempt to locate Appellant, but they have been unable to locate her. Accordingly, appellate counsel has been unable to serve Appellant with a copy of the brief and has been unable to inform Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. A defendant who fails to keep her attorney informed of her current address forfeits the right to receive a copy of an Anders brief and the right to file a pro se response. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.21. We note that the clerk of this court has also attempted to notify Appellant of the date on which her pro se response was due to be filed in this court. The letter that this court sent to Appellant at her last known address was returned with the following notation from the post office: "MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER." Under the circumstances in the present case, we conclude that Appellant's counsel has satisfied his duty under Anders and Schulman.
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See id. at 409. Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.