Anders brief in Texas

2026His appointed counsel on appeal subsequently filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief.1 Having found an arguable issue, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and remand the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 18 L.

2026His appointed counsel on appeal subsequently filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief.1 Having found an arguable issue, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and remand the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 18 L.

2026Id. (citing Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511 ; Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 , 83–84 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 ); see also Arevalos, 606 S.W.3d at 915–16 (citing Meza, 206 S.W.3d at 688–89 (“It is only when an Anders brief is not well taken that it also becomes necessary to appoint or substitute new counsel.”)). 4 Here, we conclude that the brief is deficient as to form, rather than substance.

2026See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 , 82-83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 1 In Kelly, the Court of Criminal Appeals listed additional tasks an appointed lawyer who files an Anders brief must perform: He must write a letter to (1) notify his client of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying Anders brief, providing him a copy of each, (2) inform him of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and (3) inform him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare his appeal frivolous.

2026See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6. 2 This Court also notified appellant that counsel had filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the appellate record and a file response to his counsel’s Anders brief.

2026See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or pro se response, and should only determine if the appeal is frivolous).

2026Id. at 199 (citing Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 ); see also Hung Le, 510 S.W.3d at 100 (directing counsel to rebrief appeal after finding that Anders brief was defective as to form); Arevalos v. State, 606 S.W.3d 912 , 915–16 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) (same); Banks v. State, 341 S.W.3d 428, 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (same).

2026App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim.

2026App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.2 Potts did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.

2026See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406 n.9 (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”).

2026To this list we now add that appointed counsel who files a motion to withdraw and Anders brief must also (4) take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes. 436 S.W.3d at 319 (footnote omitted).

2026To this list we now add that appointed counsel who files a motion to withdraw and Anders brief must also (4) take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes. 436 S.W.3d at 319 (footnote omitted).

2025App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340 , 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim.

2025App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340 , 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim.

2026Should Mother decide to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, her counsel’s obligation 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 24 , 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (citations omitted).

2026If Father, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, his counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards of an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28. 14 Reasonable efforts to return First, Mother argues that the Department did not present evidence regarding any of the reasonable efforts it made to return the children to her before seeking termination of her parental rights.

2024App. 1991); Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 745 (explaining an Anders brief assists the court’s review “because of the ready references not only to the record, but also to the legal authorities as furnished [the reviewing court] by counsel”).

2018The dissent’s position (1) is irreconcilable with the common understanding of the term “professional evaluation”; (2) violates High’s mandate: [We] will not accept [Anders] briefs unless they discuss the evidence adduced at trial . . . refer to pages in the record where objections were made, the nature of the objection, the trial court’s ruling, and discuss either why the trial court’s ruling was correct or why the appellant was not harmed by the ruling of the court . . . . 573 S.W.2d at 813 (emphasis added); (3) overlooks this court’s requirement that an Anders brief must contain “legal analy

2026Id. at 199 (citing Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 ); see also Hung Le, 510 S.W.3d at 100 (directing counsel to rebrief appeal after finding that Anders brief was defective as to form); Arevalos v. State, 606 S.W.3d 912 , 915–16 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) (same); Banks v. State, 341 S.W.3d 428, 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (same).

2001But see High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (abating the appeal so that the trial court "might provide appellant with the effective assistance of counsel on appeal”); Williams v. State, 976 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (striking counsel’s Anders brief, removing him from the appeal, and abating to the trial court for appointment of new counsel); Marsh v. State, 959 S.W.2d 224, 226 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.) (same).

2010Washington's court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief in which he states that he performed a "diligent review of the record and applicable authorities," finds an absence of meritorious grounds for appeal, and submits "the basis of any appeal in this case would be frivolous in nature." See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs ., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.--Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights); In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st D

2010Washington’s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief in which he states that he performed a “diligent review of the record and applicable authorities,” finds an absence of meritorious grounds for appeal, and submits “the basis of any appeal in this case would be frivolous in nature.” See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights); In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2025The State waived its right to file a response and Appellant did not file a pro se brief in response to the Anders brief.1 In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that “the responsibility to determine whether an appeal is frivolous in nature lies with the appellate court— not with the attorney of record.” Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763 , 765–66 (Tex. Crim.

2025The State waived its right 2 to file a response and Comeaux did not file a pro se brief in response to the Anders brief.1 In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that “the responsibility to determine whether an appeal is frivolous in nature lies with the appellate court— not with the attorney of record.” Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763 , 765–66 (Tex. Crim.

2026Conclusion In light of the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. 4 MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 12, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed CV06 4 We also remind Mother’s appointed appellate counsel that if Mother, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file with the Supreme Court of Texas “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id.; In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet.

2025If Mother, after consulting with her appointed appellate 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.” See id.; In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also TEX.

2017App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)). 2 In his certificate of counsel, appellant’s appellate counsel indicated that, among other things, he has: 1. notified appellant that I filed a motion to withdraw as counsel with an accompanying Anders brief, and provided a copy of each to appellant; 2. informed appellant of his right to file a pro se response identifying what he believes to be meritorious grounds to be raised in his appeal, should he so desire; 3. advised appellant of his right to review the appellate record, should he wish to do so,

2016App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693 , 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)). 2 We note that a transcript of the trial court’s hearing on Clark’s motion for reconsideration and new trial was not a part of the record when Clark’s trial counsel reviewed the record and drafted the Anders brief and motion to withdraw.

2024Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief averring that after diligently reviewing the record, he believes that the appeal is frivolous because even though the evidence is allegedly factually insufficient to support termination under Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), the record contains sufficient evidence to support termination under Subsections (E) and (N). 3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see also In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774 , 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (reasoning that Anders procedures apply in noncrim

2024Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 , 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re 2 K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774 , 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding Anders procedures apply in termination-of-parental-rights cases), disp. on merits, No. 02-01- 00349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). 2 When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist.

2023Banks v. State, 341 S.W.3d 428, 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, order); Wilson v. State, 40 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, order); see also United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir. 1998). –5– When an appellate court receives an Anders brief from an appellant’s court- appointed attorney asserting that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record.

2009Indeed, recognizing the guidance that an Anders brief must give to the courts of appeals, both state and federal courts have written, “[I]f done correctly, Anders briefs are more difficult and time-consuming than ordinary appellate briefs.” Id. at 196 (citing United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir.1998)).

2023Johnson v. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 01-08-00749-CV, 2010 WL 5186806 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67; In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326 , 330 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

2023See id. at 329–30.

2022See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849 , 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1 An Anders brief must include a review of Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) if the termination was granted on either or both of those subsections pursuant to In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 235-36 (Tex. 2019).

2020Should Mother desire to appeal further, counsel may satisfy her duty to Mother “by filing a petition for review [with the Texas Supreme Court] that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” 5 Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 3 See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849 , 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). 4 See In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850. 5 See Tex. Fam.

2025See In re D.A.S., 2 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (applying Anders procedure to juvenile proceedings).1 Counsel provided a copy of the brief and accompanying motion to withdraw to J.W., informed J.W. of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, provided J.W. with a form pro se motion to access the record, and informed J.W. of his right to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court should we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

2024Anders, 386 U.S. 744 -45; Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 407 ; D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d at 297 . –2– Here, M.M.’s counsel provided M.M. with a copy of the Anders brief and advised him of his right to examine the record and file his own response.1 This Court separately provided M.M. with a copy of the brief and notified him of his right to examine the record and file a response.

2024See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (“[A]n Anders motion to 3 withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d at 583 .

2023See 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”); cf. In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573 , 582–83 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pets. denied) (noting that since P.M. was handed down, “most courts of appeals affirming parental termination orders after receiving Anders briefs have denied the attorney’s motion to withdraw”). 4 If Appellant wishes to pursue an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for re

2020See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 ; see also In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (explaining use of Anders brief in termination cases); Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Reg. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in termination case).

2016See 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (holding that “when appointed counsel represents an indigent client in a parental termination appeal and concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, counsel may file an Anders brief”); Taylor v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641 , 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from an order terminating parental rights.

2006Code Ann. ' 31.03 (Vernon Supp. 2005). [2] See id. ' 12.24 (Vernon 2003). [3] Despite numerous attempts to locate appellant, he was not arrested until 2005. [4] See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). [5] See id . [6] See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). [7] See Sowels v. State , 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. App. B Waco 2001, no pet.). [8] Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Garza v. State , 126 S.W.3d 312, 313 (Tex. App. B Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.). [9] See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). [10

2006Code Ann. ' 22.011(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2005). [3] See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). [4] See id . [5] See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). [6] See Sowels v. State , 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. App. B Waco 2001, no pet.). [7] Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Garza v. State , 126 S.W.3d 312, 313 (Tex. App. B Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.). [8] See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). [9] See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 . [10] Moore v. State , 466 S.W.2d 289 , 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); see Staf

2022Accordingly, counsel remains Mother’s appointed attorney through proceedings in the supreme court.3 See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 ; In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied). 3 We emphasize second appointed counsel’s continued duty to Mother because in counsel’s letter to Mother informing her that counsel had filed an Anders brief, 5 IV.

2019See 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”); see also In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied) (denying a motion for withdrawal in light of P.M. where it did not show “good cause” other than counsels’ determination that an appeal would be frivolous); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573 , 582 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (noting that since P.M. was handed down, “most courts of appeals affirming parental termination ord

2024A proper Anders brief therefore must contain references to the record, citations to authority, and legal analysis.” Id. at 541–42 (quoting Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, order) (per curiam)).

2024See id. -5- ANDERS PROCEDURE In his Anders brief, court-appointed counsel advised this court that he had reviewed the record but concluded that there were no arguable points of error.

2023Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838 , 1 In the prayer section of her Anders brief, counsel for Mother indicated that contemporaneously with filing this brief, she would file a motion to withdraw.

2013See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order) (Anders procedure applies in termination cases, counsel ordered to amend inadequate Anders brief); In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (Anders rationale applies to appointed counsel in termination proceedings); In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 633 (Tex. App.—Tyler

2006Code Ann. ' 31.03 (Vernon Supp. 2005). [2] See id. ' 12.24 (Vernon 2003). [3] Despite numerous attempts to locate appellant, he was not arrested until 2005. [4] See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). [5] See id . [6] See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). [7] See Sowels v. State , 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. App. B Waco 2001, no pet.). [8] Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Garza v. State , 126 S.W.3d 312, 313 (Tex. App. B Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.). [9] See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). [10

2006Code Ann. ' 22.011(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2005). [3] See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). [4] See id . [5] See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). [6] See Sowels v. State , 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. App. B Waco 2001, no pet.). [7] Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Garza v. State , 126 S.W.3d 312, 313 (Tex. App. B Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.). [8] See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). [9] See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 . [10] Moore v. State , 466 S.W.2d 289 , 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); see Staf

2025See 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 3 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.

2025See 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 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 whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 , 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim.

2023Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief.2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

2023Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief.2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

2025App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 .

2025App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 .