Opinion
No. 04-13-00657-CV
11-15-2013
IN THE INTEREST OF U.B. ET AL CHILDREN
From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2010-PA-02670
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court's final order terminating appellant Ricardo B.'s parental rights. Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See In re RR, No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, May 21, 2003, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.)(mem. op.).
When counsel "cannot, in good faith, advance any arguable grounds of error," counsel's Anders brief must "contain a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced." High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. The brief must: refer the court to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; discuss the evidence adduced at trial; supply the court with ready references to the record; and supply the court with appropriate citations to legal authorities. Id., at 812-13. The Anders brief must "demonstrate that counsel has conscientiously examined the record and determined that the appeal is so frivolous that the appellant is not entitled to counsel on appeal." Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).
The brief filed by appointed counsel on behalf of appellant Ricardo B. does not meet these requirements. The brief contains only one citation to the reporter's record ("A jury was waived, and the case was eventually tried to the court. (RR 1)"). The brief does not otherwise recite, summarize, or discuss any of the evidence presented at trial. The brief adequately states the law applicable to this case, the standards for reviewing the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, and identifies four potential issues. However, counsel then merely makes a conclusory assertion that the issues are frivolous. The brief completely fails to apply the law to the evidence or show that the evidence supports the trial court's termination order. In short, although the brief states the appeal is frivolous, it fails to demonstrate the appeal is frivolous.
We therefore strike counsel's Anders brief and order appellant's brief redrawn. We order the redrawn brief due December 2, 2013. We further order counsel to notify appellant that the Anders brief has been stricken and there is no current deadline for filing a pro se brief.
________________
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of November, 2013.
________
Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court