Opinion
No. 10-16-00394-CV
09-13-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF A.N. AND I.R.N., CHILDREN
From the County Court at Law Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 91874CCL
ORDER
In the instant case, the trial court signed an order terminating appellant Vicki Lazo's parental rights to her children, A.N. and I.R.N., on November 1, 2016, and appellant filed her notice of appeal on November 22, 2016. The last Supplemental Clerk's and Reporter's Records were filed on December 6, 2016 and December 20, 2016, respectively. Accordingly, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 28.4 and 38.6(a), appellant's brief was due within twenty days from December 20, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4 (providing that appeals in parental termination cases are accelerated appeals), 38.6(a) (noting that appellant's brief in an accelerated appeal is due within twenty days after the later of the filing of the Clerk's or Reporter's Record).
On January 4, 2017, appellant's counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief. On January 17, 2017, after stating that Rule of Judicial Administration 6.2(a) provides that appellate courts should dispose of appeals from the termination of the parent-child relationship within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed, we denied counsel's motion and ordered him to file his brief within thirty days of January 17, 2017.
Subsequently, on February 12, 2017, appellant's counsel filed a letter with this Court stating the following, in its entirety: "The appellant will not be filing a brief in this matter, as no error was found. A brief has been filed in the two companion cases." On March 21, 2017, this Court concluded that counsel's letter stating that "no error was found" was insufficient in this matter and, after citing to Anders cases, ordered counsel to file a compliant brief within twenty-one days.
Thereafter, on April 6, 2017, counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief, noting that he needed more time to file appellant's brief due to him needing to care for his son after appendectomy surgery. We granted counsel's motion for extension and ordered him to file appellant's brief by May 24, 2017.
Appellant's counsel did not file appellant's brief by May 24, 2017. Therefore, on June 1, 2017, we informed counsel that appellant's brief was late and requested a response within fourteen days. Twelve days later, counsel filed a brief that was labeled an "Anders brief," though it advanced four points of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 493, 498 (1967) (establishing the procedure for court-appointed counsel "if counsel finds [the client's] case to the wholly frivolous"); see also In re J.A.H., 986 S.W.2d 39, 40 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, order) (noting that an Anders brief must contain a "'professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.'" (quoting Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, order, pet. ref'd) (per curiam))).
We later discovered that counsel's brief did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.8(b), which requires the redaction of minors' identities "in all papers submitted to the court, including all appendix items submitted with a brief . . . ." TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(1). Accordingly, on July 25, 2017, we informed counsel of the deficiency and informed him that the brief on file with this Court would be stricken in its entirety either upon the filing of an amended brief or the expiration of seven days, whichever came first. Counsel did not respond to our July 25, 2017 letter order.
On August 10, 2017, we struck counsel's brief filed on behalf of appellant because he did not file an amended brief in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.8(b). See id. We then gave counsel another fourteen days to file an amended brief redacting the identities of the children involved in this case in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.8(b). See id. Once again, counsel has not responded to our letter order.
Because of counsel's inaction, this termination appeal is now outside the 180-day time frame prescribed in Rule of Judicial Administration 6.2(a). Due to the time constraints for disposition of these types of appeals, we (1) withdraw our August 10, 2017 order striking counsel's brief in this matter; (2) use Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend the redaction requirement; (3) order that counsel's June 13, 2017 brief, including the appendix, to be sealed; and (4) consider counsel's June 13, 2017 brief for purposes of analyzing the issues in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Counsel is instructed that future filings in termination cases will be expected to be in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, including Rule 9.8.
PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
Order issued and filed September 13, 2017