in the Interest of V.B. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                         In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    ____________________
    NO. 09-18-000393-CV
    ____________________
    IN THE INTEREST OF V.B.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    On Appeal from the 317th District Court
    Jefferson County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. C-230,775
    ________________________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    N.B. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his daughter,
    V.B. 1, 2 The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence statutory grounds
    exist for termination of N.B.’s parental rights, and termination of his rights would
    be in V.B.’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E) (West
    Supp. 2018). Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in
    1
    To protect the identity of the minor, we use initials for the child and her parents.
    See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
    2
    The mother’s parental rights to V.B. were terminated in an earlier proceeding.
    She is not a party to this appeal.
    1
    which counsel contends there are no meritorious grounds to be advanced on appeal.
    See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744 (1967); In re L.D.T., 
    161 S.W.3d 728
    ,
    731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief provides counsel’s
    professional evaluation of the record. Counsel certified Appellant was served with a
    copy of the Anders brief filed on his behalf. This Court notified Appellant of his
    right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for filing the response. This
    Court did not receive a pro se response from Appellant. We have independently
    reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we agree any appeal would
    be frivolous. We find no arguable error requiring us to appoint new counsel to re-
    brief this appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
    Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating N.B.’s parental
    rights. We deny the motion to withdraw filed by N.B.’s court-appointed appellate
    counsel, because an attorney’s duty extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all
    appeals. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(3)(B) (West Supp. 2018); In re P.M.,
    
    520 S.W.3d 24
    , 27 (Tex. 2016). In the event N.B. decides to pursue an appeal to the
    Supreme Court of Texas, counsel’s obligations to N.B. can be met “by filing a
    petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See In re 
    P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27
    –28.
    2
    AFFIRMED.
    _________________________
    CHARLES KREGER
    Justice
    Submitted on January 2, 2019
    Opinion Delivered January 24, 2019
    Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-18-00393-CV

Filed Date: 1/24/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021