in the Interest of M.A.R., A.R., A.R., I.R., and J.R., Children ( 2011 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10-00237-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF
M.A.R., A.R., A.R., I.R., AND J.R., CHILDREN
From the County Court at Law
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 77,521-CCL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After Appellant’s parental rights to her five children were terminated following a
jury trial, Appellant filed a motion for new trial and sought indigent status for appeal.
The trial court denied the motion for new trial, found her appeal to be frivolous, and
overruled her claim of indigence. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(d) (Vernon 2008).
Appellant’s counsel then withdrew. We abated this appeal for a hearing in the trial
court to appoint counsel to appeal the trial court’s indigence and frivolousness
determinations if it found that Appellant had not abandoned this appeal.
The trial court appointed counsel for Appellant, and appointed counsel has filed
an Anders brief with us and a motion to withdraw in the trial court. Appointed counsel
asserts that he has diligently reviewed the available record and the issues in Appellant’s
statement of points and that, in his opinion, the appeal of the trial court’s frivolousness
finding is frivolous.1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493
(1967); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders
to termination appeal).
Although informed of her right to do so, Appellant did not file a pro se brief or
response to the Anders brief.
In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, []
decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400;
accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is
“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy
v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440
(1988).
We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find
this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the trial court’s order of termination.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed May 11, 2011
[CV06]
1 Because none of the issues in the statement of points challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the
absence of a reporter’s record from the trial does not raise a due-process concern. See, e.g., In re S.T., 242
S.W.3d 923, 925 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, order). Furthermore, appointed counsel has not requested the
reporter’s record from the trial. See id. at 925 n.1.
In the Interest of M.A.R. Page 2