Opinion
NO. 14-13-01012-CV
02-06-2014
IN THE INTEREST OF A.J.Z. AKA E.Z. AND D.D.B AKA D.B., CHILDREN
Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 6, 2014.
On Appeal from the 315th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2012-05681J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Zenita R., appeals a final decree signed October 24, 2013, terminating her parental rights to her two children. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court found that appellant was indigent and appointed counsel to represent her in this appeal.
Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
A copy of counsel's brief and the record were delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of her right to review the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329-30. This court provided appellant a copy of the record and advised her that any pro se response was required to be filed on or before January 27, 2013. No response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan.