In Re Commitment of Earl Burt Barnes, III v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed January 22, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00038-CV
__________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF EARL BURT BARNES, III

On Appeal from the 259th District Court
Jones County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 025619

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a civil commitment order in which the State sought to
commit Appellant, Earl Burt Barnes, III, for treatment and supervision as a sexually
violent predator pursuant to the Texas Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent
Predators Act. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ch. 841 (West 2017 & Supp.
2025). A jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant is a sexually violent
predator, and the trial court entered a final judgment and commitment order
committing Appellant for treatment and supervision. HEALTH & SAFETY § 841.081.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel
has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw,
an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel
also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to
counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 53. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44, Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014), Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12, and Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. 1 See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas
1

Supreme Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 53.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, 2 and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

January 22, 2026
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

2
We decline to extend the Supreme Court’s holding in In re P.M. to civil commitment appeals. See
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 26–27 (Tex. 2016) (appointed counsel’s representation of an indigent mother
in an involuntary parental rights termination proceeding extends to the filing of a petition for review). As
discussed in P.M., the Family Code affords indigent parents in involuntary termination proceedings the
right to counsel until “all appeals . . . are exhausted or waived.” See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2)(B)
(West Supp. 2025). Section 841.144 of the Health and Safety Code provides that “a person subject to a
civil commitment proceeding . . . is entitled to the assistance of counsel at all stages of the proceeding,”
which includes “a trial or hearing.” HEALTH & SAFETY §§ 841.002(3-a), 841.061 (trial), 841.103 (hearing),
841.144(a). We have found no statutory language in Chapter 841 comparable to Section 107.016 of the
Family Code that would indicate a legislative intent to extend counsel’s representation to the filing of a
petition for review in this context. Cf. 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.) (applying Anders procedure to
a civil commitment appeal and denying counsel’s motion to withdraw pursuant to P.M.).