Julie Earlene Hawkins Bailey v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
Date FiledAugust 31, 2026
Docket02-26-00283-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-26-00283-CR
___________________________
JULIE EARLENE HAWKINS BAILEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 213th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1909815
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Julie Earlene Hawkins Bailey, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal
her conviction for the state-jail felony offense of bestiality. See Tex. Penal Code
§ 21.09(b). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Bailey was indicted for the second-degree felony offense of bestiality
committed in the presence of a child under the age of 18 or resulting in serious bodily
injury or death of the animal. See id. § 21.09(a)(9), (b). Pursuant to a plea bargain,
Bailey agreed to plead guilty to the lesser-included offense of bestiality in exchange for
the State’s agreeing to waive a repeat-offender notice and recommending that Bailey’s
punishment be reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and that her punishment be
assessed at four months’ confinement in county jail. See id. § 12.44(a) (authorizing trial
court to punish defendant convicted of state-jail felony by imposing confinement
permissible as punishment for Class A misdemeanor). As part of the written plea
agreement, Bailey waived “all rights of appeal,” and she was admonished that if the
trial court followed the plea agreement, she could not appeal her case—except for
matters raised by written motion filed before trial—without permission from the trial
court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02; Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
In accordance with the parties’ agreement, the trial court found Bailey guilty of
bestiality and sentenced her to four months in jail. The trial court’s “Certification of
Defendant’s Right of Appeal,” which was signed by Bailey, states that this “is a plea-
bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P.
2
25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court also certified that Bailey “has waived the right of
appeal.”
On July 31, 2026, after we received a copy of Bailey’s notice of appeal, we
notified her that we had received the trial court’s certification stating that this is a
plea-bargain case, that she has no right of appeal, and that she has waived the right of
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). We warned her that this appeal could be
dismissed unless, by August 10, 2026, she filed a response showing grounds for
continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. Bailey did not file a response.
Thus, in accordance with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss this appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: August 31, 2026
3