Full Opinion

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