Mother's parental rights to her child were terminated; her appointed appellate counsel filed a petition for review in this Court asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel and asking for a new trial, but a page earlier stating counsel "does not have any basis for concluding this Court would find error" and moving for withdrawal.¹

The Second Court of Appeals decided the underlying appeal. The State quoted counsel's concession in its response and Mother's counsel filed no reply; the Court ordered counsel on February 27, 2026 to file a letter by March 9 clarifying whether he was proceeding under Anders, and counsel filed nothing. The Court denied the petition June 5, 2026.¹

Petition for review from the Second Court of Appeals, denied, with a concurring opinion.² On October 2, 2026 the Court denied rehearing, stating that counsel had explained the portion of the petition invoking Anders v. California was included in error and that, with that clarification, the Court reexamined the petition's merits (Orders, Oct. 2, 2026).

Whether the petition presented a non-frivolous issue given counsel's own statement that no reversible error existed.¹

Counsel argued Mother's due-process rights were violated by ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the State relied on counsel's concession.¹

Not applicable⁠—the petition was denied.

None noted

Reasoning

Parents in termination cases receive free counsel and may raise ineffective assistance on appeal, so genuine ineffectiveness should be rare, which makes this petition "astounding".¹ The Anders language looks accidentally left in from another case's petition (it uses the feminine pronoun though counsel is a man), but either way counsel did not proofread, read the State's response, or answer the Court's order; all courts have inherent power to discipline attorneys, and this Court regulates the practice of law.²

Disposition

Petition for review denied.

Vote Breakdown

Justice Young concurred in the denial, joined by Justices Sullivan and Hawkins.³