in the Interest of J.L., Minor Child
13-15-00325-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 5, 2015Background
- Appellant A.L.'s parental rights to minor J.L. were terminated by the trial court on statutory grounds: conviction/placement on community supervision for conduct causing death or serious injury to a child and criminal conduct resulting in conviction and confinement making him unable to care for the child for at least two years.
- The trial court also found termination was in the child’s best interest and entered a termination order reflecting those findings.
- Appellant was represented by court‑appointed counsel on appeal; counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, concluding there were no non‑frivolous appellate issues.
- The appellate court complied with Texas procedures for Anders briefs: counsel notified appellant, provided the record, and appellant was given opportunity to file a pro se brief; appellant timely filed a pro se brief.
- The State declined to file an appellee’s brief, noting counsel’s Anders conclusion, and did not respond to appellant’s pro se brief.
- The court conducted an independent review of the entire record, found no reversible error, affirmed the termination, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and instructed counsel to notify appellant of his right to seek review in the Texas Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there are non‑frivolous appellate issues challenging termination | Appellant (via pro se brief) raised matters recorded in the record but did not identify reversible error | Appellate counsel (Anders) argued no arguable grounds for reversal after review | Court independently reviewed record and found the appeal wholly frivolous; affirmed termination |
| Whether Anders procedure was properly followed | Appellant argued entitlement to full access to record and to present pro se issues | Counsel argued he complied with Anders/Schulman notice and provided record; requested withdrawal | Court found procedural compliance (record provided, notices given) and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw |
| Whether the statutory termination findings were supported | Appellant challenged aspects of trial record via pro se brief | State asserted statutory findings supported termination and did not contest Anders conclusion | Court concluded record supported statutory findings and best‑interest finding; affirmed |
| Whether new counsel must be appointed for petition for review | Appellant sought further review options | Counsel requested withdrawal; noted no substitution | Court ordered counsel to notify appellant of right to seek review and stated no substitute counsel would be appointed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedure when appointed counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (requires appellate court independent review when counsel files Anders brief)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas guidance for Anders‑type briefs and pro se responses)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (addresses counsel’s duties when concluding appeal is frivolous)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (discusses withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural guidance cited regarding Anders compliance)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting appellate opinion should state it considered issues and reviewed record for reversible error)