record for reversible error in Texas

2026See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 - 2 28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).

2026See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619 .

2026App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509 .

2026App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509 . 3 Counsel reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's findings as to Mother under Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(E) and determined that it would be frivolous to attack the findings.

2025App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509 . 1 An appellant’s pro se response following the filing of an Anders brief “need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered[; r]ather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding w

2025App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509 . 2 An appellant’s pro se response following the filing of an Anders brief “need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered[; r]ather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding w

2009Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509 . 12. 12 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.

2009App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509 . 12. 12 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.

2025App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 18 L.

2025App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 18 L.

2022See id. at 827–28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509 .

2019App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693 , 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)). 4 issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509 .

2024See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim.

2024See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim.

2023Thus, it follows the appeals are frivolous. 11 For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-brief them. 12 9Id. 10Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 ). 11See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). 12See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

2021See id. at 827–28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509 .

2004See id. ; see also High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim.

2004See id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

2008Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

2008Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

2026App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by 2 indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); see also Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29 , 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim.

2022App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); see also Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29 , 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim.

2007Owners’ Ass’n. v. Linden, 222 S.W.3d 682, 693 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 200 S.W.3d 217, 232 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2006, pet. filed). 6 We have reviewed the record for reversible error, however, because this case is very unique.

2007Owners' Ass'n. v. Linden , No. 01-05-01116-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 2286 , at *17 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 22, 2007, no pet.); Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo , 200 S.W.3d 217, 232 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2006, pet. filed). (6) We have reviewed the record for reversible error, however, because this case is very unique.

2007While we recognize that a medical malpractice plaintiff must generally present expert testimony to support their claims of negligence and causation, Garza v. Levin, 769 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied), this is not the typical medical negligence case.

2007While we recognize that a medical malpractice plaintiff must generally present expert testimony to support their claims of negligence and causation, Garza v. Levin , 769 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied), this is not the typical medical negligence case.

2026See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); In re E.A.G., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8567 , at *2 (citing In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619 ).

2026See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619 .

2022Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s “Final Order of Termination and Order in Suit Affecting the Parent Child Relationship.” We also remind Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel that if Appellant, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 , 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam); see In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also TEX.

2021On September 16, 2020, Durst filed a letter3 with the Court suggesting that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel from his “first” lawyer. 4 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. Crim.

2021On September 16, 2020, Durst filed a letter3 with the Court suggesting that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel from his “first” lawyer. 4 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. Crim.

2021Although Appellant’s counsel has asserted, and we agree, that there is no reversible error in the trial court’s order of termination, see In re T.N.F., 205 S.W.3d 625, 629 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, pet. denied) (“If multiple predicate violations under [sub]section 161.001[(b)](1) were found in the trial court, we will affirm based on any one ground because only one predicate violation under [sub]section 161.001[(b)](1) is necessary to a termination judgment.”), overruled in part on other grounds by In re A.M., 385 S.W.3d 74, 79 (Tex. App.—Waco 2012, pet. denied), Appellant’s counsel states that he

2021Although Appellant’s counsel has asserted, and we agree, that there is no reversible error in the trial court’s order of termination, see In re T.N.F., 205 S.W.3d 625, 629 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, pet. denied) (“If multiple predicate violations under [sub]section 161.001[(b)](1) were found in the trial court, we will affirm based on any one ground because only one predicate violation under [sub]section 161.001[(b)](1) is necessary to a termination judgment.”), overruled in part on other grounds by In re A.M., 385 S.W.3d 74, 79 (Tex. App.—Waco 2012, pet. denied), Appellant’s counsel states that he

2019We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review, and an appeal would be frivolous.3 See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim.

2015In re E.M.E., 234 S.W.3d 71 , 72 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (citing In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex. 2002)).

2009App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509 . 12. 12 See Coffey v. State , 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim.

2007Owners’ Ass’n. v. Linden, 222 S.W.3d 682, 693 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 200 S.W.3d 217, 232 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2006, pet. filed). 6 We have reviewed the record for reversible error, however, because this case is very unique.

2006See Taulung v. State, 979 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998, no pet.) (bench trial of sexual assault case). [2] A pro se response that raises and briefs potentially arguable issues also could warrant a detailed analysis. [3] We will let others assess the concurring opinion's characterization of this opinion as "mind-numbing." [1] The actual conclusion in the court of appeals decision was: "We likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none." Id. at 825.

1999Torres v. State , 979 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Tex. App.­San Antonio 1998, no pet.); see Tex. R.