TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-26-00389-CV
In re The Commitment of Jacob Irvin Wauthier
FROM THE 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY,
NO. D-1-GN-24-003118, THE HONORABLE TAMARA NEEDLES, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal is from a civil-commitment proceeding in which the State petitioned to
have appellant Jacob Irvin Wauthier, declared a sexually violent predator (SVP) and committed
for treatment and supervision under the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act. See
Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 841.001-.209. After a jury found unanimously and beyond a
reasonable doubt that Wauthier is a sexually violent predator, the trial court entered a final
judgment and order of commitment. See id. § 841.081(a).
Wauthier’s statutorily-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by
a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1 Counsel’s brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and
demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744-45
(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,
1
Wauthier is represented by the Office of State Counsel for Offenders, which represents indigent persons who are the subject of civil-commitment proceedings under chapter 841. See Act of May 28, 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., ch. 1022, § 103, sec. 841.005, 2025 Tex. Gen. Laws ___ (amended 2025) (current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code § 841.005(b) (requiring Texas Board of Criminal Justice to provide representation for indigent persons in civil commitment proceedings under chapter 841 as of September 1, 2025)).
488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in
determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that
the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Counsel informed the Court that he provided copies of the motion
and brief to Wauthier; advised him of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief,
and pursue discretionary review after resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided him with
a copy of the appellate record along with this Court’s mailing address. See Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Wauthier did not file a pro se brief.
After independently reviewing the record and considering counsel’s brief, we have
found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner,
300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Thus,
we affirm the trial court’s final judgment and order of commitment.
However, when a statute provides for the appointment of counsel for an indigent
person, an attorney’s duty to the client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals in
relation to the order. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 26-27 (Tex. 2016) (concluding that appointed
counsel’s representation of indigent parent in involuntary parental-rights-termination proceeding
extends to filing of petition for review); see also In re Commitment of Hayden, No. 09-24-00257-CV, 2025 WL 1074955, at *1 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 10, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(applying Anders procedure to civil-commitment appeal under chapter 841 and denying counsel’s
motion to withdraw, citing P.M.); In re Commitment of Riggs, No. 06-18-00073-CV, 2019 WL
1560688, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); but see In re
Commitment of Barnes, No. 11-24-00038-CV, 2026 WL 193421, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland
Jan. 22, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying Anders procedure to civil-commitment appeal under
chapter 841 and granting counsel’s motion to withdraw). We conclude that counsel’s obligation
to Wauthier has not yet been discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 26-27. If after consulting
2
with counsel Wauthier desires to file a petition for review, his counsel should timely file with the
Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis
Affirmed
Filed: August 26, 2026
Do Not Publish
3