From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re A.S.T.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Jul 31, 2024
No. 04-24-00146-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 31, 2024)

Opinion

04-24-00146-CV

07-31-2024

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.T.


From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022PA00891 Honorable Kimberly Burley, Associate Judge Presiding

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Appellant A.L. appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to her two-year-old daughter A.S.T. Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief representing that she conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing Anders procedure applies in parental termination appeals). Counsel also certified that she sent a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw to appellant, informed her of the right to review the record and file her own brief, and provided appellant with a form motion to request access to the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.L.H., No. 04-18-00153-CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.). We issued an order setting deadlines for appellant to file a motion to review the appellate record and for appellant to file a pro se brief. However, appellant did not request the appellate record nor did she file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we agree that there are no meritorious issues to be raised and the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order terminating appellant's parental rights. We deny appointed counsel's motion to withdraw because she does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 (holding that counsel's obligations in a parental termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review at the supreme court, and that withdrawal should be permitted by a court of appeals "only for good cause").


Summaries of

In re A.S.T.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Jul 31, 2024
No. 04-24-00146-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 31, 2024)
Case details for

In re A.S.T.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.T.

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Jul 31, 2024

Citations

No. 04-24-00146-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 31, 2024)