Opinion
NO. 14-14-00344-CVNO. 14-14-00351-CVNO. 14-14-00352-CVNO. 14-14-00368-CV
09-18-2014
IN THE INTEREST OF X.I.M., P.M., E.C., D.C., E.C., AND Y.C., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 312th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 2002-50811, 2011-10644, 2012-42185, & 2011-01184J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Doana Montoya, appeals three final decrees signed April 28, 2014, terminating her parental rights to X.I.M., P.M., E.C., and D.C. Appellant further appeals a judgment signed April 28, 2014, appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services managing conservator of E.C. and Y.C. Appellant filed a timely notice of 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 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record 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.).
On July 14, 2014, a copy of the record and counsel's brief were delivered to appellant and appellant was notified of the right to 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. More than thirty days have elapsed and as of this date, no pro se 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 Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.