In the Commitment of Willie Anthony Webb v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: 08-25-00042-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE COMMITMENT OF § No. 08-25-00042-CV

WILLIE ANTHONY WEBB. § Appeal from the

§ 226th District Court

§ of Bexar County, Texas

§ (TC# 2023CI13713)

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 4, 2024, Appellant Willie Anthony Webb filed a notice of appeal with the

Bexar County District Clerk, challenging a civil order of commitment rendered against him. The

notice of appeal was signed by attorney J. Charles Bunk. The district clerk forwarded Webb’s

notice to the Fourth Court of Appeals. 1 On December 9, 2024, the Clerk of the Fourth Court of

Appeals notified Webb’s counsel that a filing fee of $205 was due unless it was shown that

payment was excused by law. After expiration of 10 days, the Clerk informed Webb that his appeal

would be subject to dismissal without further notice if the fee remained unpaid, or if no excuse

from payment was provided. The case was then transferred to this Court.

1 This case was transferred to this Court pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization efforts. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.

1 Having received no payment or other response, the Clerk of this Court sent a second request

to counsel on February 5, 2025, seeking payment of the fee or excuse of payment by law. The

second notice additionally informed counsel that the Court had been notified that pay arrangements

for the Clerk’s Record had yet to be made for the appeal. The letter reiterated the case remained

subject to dismissal without notice if no response was received by February 25, 2025. As before,

no response was received from Webb or his counsel. On March 12, 2025, this Court abated the

appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court. On remand, we ordered that court to determine:

(1) whether Webb still desired to prosecute his appeal, (2) whether attorney Bunk continued to

represent Webb, and (3) whether Webb was indigent. We further ordered the trial court to appoint

new counsel to pursue the appeal, if necessary.

On March 24, 2025, the trial court held a hearing attended by Webb’s former and current

counsel, but not by Webb himself. At the start, the trial court noted it had determined from its own

investigation that Webb had been “errantly released from custody early, contrary to the

requirements of the commitment.” It then proceeded to address the substance of this Court’s order.

The trial court heard testimony from Bunk, Webb’s former attorney of record, and Vikash Bhakta,

Webb’s current attorney of record.

Bunk testified that, after the civil commitment trial, he filed a notice of appeal in

accordance with Webb’s desires. He explained that Webb had been adamant that he wanted to

appeal the verdict of the jury. He additionally described that he soon filed a motion to withdraw

as counsel. The trial court noted that it signed an order withdrawing Bunk on February 10, 2025,

and a predecessor judge had appointed Bhakta as appellate attorney on December 10, 2024. On

the question of indigency, Bunk described Webb “would be indigent” as he had been incarcerated

at that time for in excess of 15 years. Bhakta testified he believed Webb had a desire to prosecute

his appeal based solely on his review of Webb’s notice of appeal. He explained he had no contrary

2 information from Webb as he had not been able to locate him or his address, whether in Bexar

County or Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Following the close of the hearing, the trial court issued its Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law where it found that, despite attempts to locate and notify Webb of the hearing,

he did not attend in person. The trial court found that Webb was no longer confined pursuant to a

civil commitment order, he had been released from confinement, and he had not left a forwarding

address or contact information. Further, the trial court could not determine why Webb was released

from confinement but it found the release appeared to be erroneous. Based on these findings and

conclusions, the trial court determined that Webb did not desire to pursue his appeal and it had

been abandoned.

Although it appears that Webb remains indigent and he has been appointed counsel to

represent him on appeal, he failed to appear at a hearing in the trial court. The trial court and

counsel described that efforts had been made to contact him but he did not provide a forwarding

address nor respond to inquiries. The trial court also determined that Webb had been errantly

released from custody contrary to requirements of the commitment order. Accordingly, we

conclude Webb has abandoned his appeal. See In re Commitment of M. G., No. 14-20-00746-CV,

2021 WL 2546150, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 22, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(dismissing an appeal of a court-ordered mental health services order when, on abatement and

remand, the trial court found appellant could not be located and concluded appellant had

abandoned her appeal); In re A.A., No. 05-13-00519-CV, 2014 WL 1483580, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Apr. 15, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing a juvenile case when appellant did not appear

at trial court’s hearing on remand and had not otherwise responded to the court’s notices); see also

Cammack v. State, No. 04-15-00731-CR, 2016 WL 1359353, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr.

3 6, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing a criminal appeal when

appellant failed to appear for remanded hearing in the trial court).

Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). All pending motions are denied as moot.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

April 11, 2025

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.