Opinion
04-23-01103-CV
03-25-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF E.S., A Child
From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023PA00055 Honorable Kimberly Burley, Judge Presiding
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Appellant's attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967). After reviewing the brief and motion, we find they are insufficient in light of our decision in In re N.F.M., 582 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Dec. 19, 2018, no pet.). Specifically, the brief and motion are insufficient because:
(1)the Anders brief does not provide legal analysis of the trial court's best interest finding or explain why any challenges to that finding must fail;
(2)while the motion to withdraw states that it is accompanied by "a copy of the letter sent to [appellant] advising her of her rights in this matter," no such letter is attached to the motion;
(3)the motion to withdraw does not indicate that counsel provided appellant with a form motion for access to the appellant record which includes the mailing address for the court of appeals and lacks only appellant's signature and the date, with instructions to file the motion within 10 days; and
(4)the motion to withdraw does not inform appellant that her pro se response, if any, should identify those issues which appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.
Accordingly, we ORDER appointed counsel's Anders brief and motion to withdraw stricken and that the brief and motion be redrawn. We ORDER the redrawn brief to be filed in this court by April 4, 2024. We further ORDER appointed counsel to notify appellant that the Anders brief has been stricken, that there is no current deadline for filing a pro se brief, and to provide this court with proof that she has notified appellant as ordered.
We advise counsel to pay particular attention to the necessary components of an Anders brief as set out in our decision in N.F.M. See 582 S.W.3d at 541-44. Appointed counsel is instructed that pursuant to our decision in N.F.M., conclusory statements that the appeal is frivolous are inadequate; rather, appointed counsel must explain why and how she reached her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See Earle v. Ratliff, 998 S.W.2d 882, 890 (Tex. 1999) (holding statement is conclusory if basis for statement is unexplained); CA Partners v. Spears, 274 S.W.3d 51, 63 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (holding that conclusory statement is one that does not provide underlying facts to support conclusion).
It is so ORDERED on MARCH 25, 2024.