Opinion
No. 11-18-00303-CV
03-21-2019
IN THE INTEREST OF R.N.R. AND O.M.S., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C47432
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother and the fathers of R.N.R. and O.M.S. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2018). All three parents filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.
Each parent's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet 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, 406-08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light of a recent holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw "may be premature" if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that "appointed counsel's obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief." Id. at 27-28.
Each counsel provided his/her client with a copy of the respective brief and the motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed the parents of their right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel's brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel for the mother and counsel for the father of R.N.R. provided those parents with a copy of the appellate record, and counsel for O.M.S.'s father provided him with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. We conclude that all three attorneys have satisfied their duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly.
We note that none of the parents have filed a pro se response to counsel's Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal—as to each parent—is frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motions to withdraw that were filed by the parents' court-appointed attorneys. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.
Accordingly, we deny the motions to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court's order of termination.
PER CURIAM March 21, 2019 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. Willson, J., not participating.
Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.