in the Interest of A.C., K. L.C. III and L. C. v. Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
    FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
    ORDER
    Appellate case name:       In the Interest of A.C., K.L.C. III and L.C.
    Appellate case number: 01-20-00002-CV
    Trial court case number: 18CP0096
    Trial court:               306th District Court of Galveston County
    K.L.C. II, Father, appeals the termination of his parental rights to A.C., K.L.C.
    III, and L.C. Father’s appointed attorney has filed a brief in which she concludes
    that, after a review of the record and pertinent law, the appeal is frivolous and
    without merit. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967); In re P.M., 
    520 S.W.3d 24
    , 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure
    in appeals from termination of parental rights because it “strikes an important
    balance between the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and
    counsel’s obligation not to prosecute frivolous appeals”). Father did not file a pro
    se response.
    Under Anders, if an appointed attorney concludes after reviewing the record
    and applicable law that the appeal is without merit, he must advise the court, file a
    motion to withdraw, and file a brief discussing any issue that might arguably support
    the appeal. See 
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 318 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2014). The appellate court must then perform an independent
    examination of the record and the law to determine whether appeal is frivolous. See
    
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    . The question before us is not who will ultimately prevail
    but instead whether any non-frivolous issue exists. If the court determines that there
    are arguable issues, it must abate the appeal and remand with orders for the trial
    court to appoint new counsel. See Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 1991).
    After examining the record and applicable law, the Court has determined that
    a nonfrivolous issue may exist. For instance, on appeal, the Father could potentially
    bring a nonfrivolous challenge concerning the legal and factual sufficiency of the
    evidence supporting the trial court’s section 161.001(b)(1)(D) finding. See TEX.
    FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D). Accordingly, the court strikes appellant’s brief,
    grants the motion to withdraw, abates the appeal, and remands the case to the trial
    court for appointment of new counsel. Father’s brief will be due within 30 days after
    new counsel is appointed.
    It is so ORDERED.
    Judge’s signature:          ____/s/ Sherry Radack________
     Acting individually  Acting for the Court
    Date: ___April 7, 2020___
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-20-00002-CV

Filed Date: 4/7/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/8/2020