concluding that subsection 263.405(b) and 263.405(i) violated appellant’s due process rights where appellate counsel was not appointed until after deadline for filing statement of points
How later courts described this case
- concluding that subsection 263.405(b) and 263.405(i) violated appellant’s due process rights where appellate counsel was not appointed until after deadline for filing statement of points
- opining that fundamental error was inapplicable to section 263.405’s requirement of a statement of points
- holding statute as applied to indigent mother violated her due process rights
- collecting decisions of seven other courts of appeals questioning due process implications of sections 263.405(b) and (i)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Rhonda Moncrief brings this appeal from a decree terminating her parental rights. The judgment is affirmed. See Lozano v. Lozano, 52 S.W.3d 141, 143-44 (Tex.2001) (per curiam); see also Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 239-40 , 92 S.Ct. 2726, 2727 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (per curiam); Gilles v. Ware, 615 A.2d 533, 534 (D.C.1992) (per curiam).
Chief Justice GRAY concurs.
Justice REYNA concurs.
Justice VANCE dissents.