Opinion
No. 04-13-00687-CV
11-08-2013
IN THE INTEREST OF T.S.L. A CHILD
From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-PA-01216
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Appellant appeals the trial court's termination of her parental rights. Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. In In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.), we held that in parental-termination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill his ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent procedures for all indigent litigants. In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders, appellant's attorney has informed appellant of her right to file her own brief. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, she must do so within twenty (20) days from the date of this order. If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after the date appellant's pro se brief is filed in this court. We ORDER the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant's counsel, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.
_____________
Karen Angelini, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 8th day of November, 2013.
_____________
Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
MINUTES
No. 04-13-00687-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF T.S.L. A CHILD
From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-PA-01216
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Appellant appeals the trial court's termination of her parental rights. Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. In In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.), we held that in parental-termination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill his ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent procedures for all indigent litigants. In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders, appellant's attorney has informed appellant of her right to file her own brief. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, she must do so within twenty (20) days from the date of this order. If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after the date appellant's pro se brief is filed in this court. We ORDER the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant's counsel, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.
_____________
Karen Angelini, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 8th day of November, 2013.
_____________
Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court