Legal Opinion

in the Interest of L.D.T., C.R.E.T. and W.G.T.

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided March 24, 2005No. 09-04-00016-CVPublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOLLIS HORTON, Justice.

This case presents an issue of first impression for this Court. We must determine whether appointed counsel may file an Anders brief in a parental-rights termination appeal.

In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-44, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the United States Supreme Court held that a court-appointed defense attorney in a criminal case who determines, after fully examining the record, that an appeal is frivolous must so advise the appellate court and then set forth any potential points of error and applicable law that might arguably support the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. In the Interest of A.V.Texas Supreme Court · 2003
  5. In the Interest of M.S.Texas Supreme Court · 2003

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. In Re LDT, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2005
  2. In the Interest of A.F., S.F., G.F., and L.B. v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2024
  3. In the Interest of A.N.R. v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2023
  4. In the Interest of B.R. and A.R. v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2024
  5. In the Interest of C.D. and M.D. v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2023

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API