In re J.L.G.

Full title: In the Interest of J.L.G., Jr., J.L.G., J.E.G. AND J.L.G., Children

Court: COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B

Date published: Jan 11, 2013

NO. 07-12-0439-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 11, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 07-12-0439-CV

01-11-2013

In the Interest of J.L.G., Jr., J.L.G., J.E.G. AND J.L.G., Children

Brian Quinn

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2010-552,341; HONORABLE JUDY C. PARKER, PRESIDING

Memorandum Opinion

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant Leticia Montiel had her parental rights to her four minor sons terminated and has appealed that order. Appellant's appointed counsel filed an Anders¹ brief and has moved to withdraw. In the brief, counsel certified that she diligently reviewed the appellate record and concluded the appeal was meritless. So too did she state that she informed her client of her conclusion and of appellant's right to review the record and file a pro se response to the brief. By letter dated December 5, 2012, this court also notified appellant of her right to tender her own brief or response and set December 27, 2012, as the deadline to do so. To date, no brief or response or motion for extension of time to file a brief or response has been received.

1

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal, which included the sufficiency of the evidence to support at least one ground for termination found by the court and that termination was in the best interest of the children. She satisfactorily explained why the issues were without merit. See In re P.E.W., 105 S.W.3d 771, 777 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (holding that the decision may be affirmed if the evidence supports the existence of one ground and that termination is in the best interest of the child).

In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon conducting that review, we agree with counsel's conclusions as to the sufficiency of the evidence and further determined that the termination order was timely, and that appellant appeared at the hearing and she had the opportunity to defend against the accusations, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the order is affirmed.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).