In the Matter of B.T. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00318-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00318-CV ___________________________

IN THE MATTER OF B.T.

On Appeal from the 323rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 323-120652-23

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION

B.T. appeals from a juvenile-court order transferring him to the Institutional

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to complete the

remainder of his determinate sentence. We affirm.

In May 2023, according to an agreement with the State, B.T. judicially

confessed to engaging in delinquent conduct by acting as a party to a murder; the trial

court found him delinquent and sentenced him to the agreed eighteen-year

determinate sentence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 7.02(a)(2), 19.02(b)(1); see also Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. § 53.045(a)(1) (providing that a murder offense is eligible for

determinate sentencing).

On May 9, 2025, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) requested by

letter that the trial court decide whether to transfer B.T. to TDCJ because he would

not be able to complete his statutory minimum three-year period of confinement

before his nineteenth birthday. See Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 245.051(c)(2); see also

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 54.04(d)(3), 54.11. After a June 25, 2025 hearing––within the

sixty-day period after the date shown on TJJD’s letter––the trial court ordered B.T.

transferred to TDCJ to serve the remainder of his sentence. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 54.11(h).

B.T.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a

brief in which he asserts that he has concluded, after thoroughly examining the record

in this case, that it “presents no issues of arguable merit upon direct appeal.”

2 Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45,

87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See In re

D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (applying Anders

procedure to juvenile proceedings). Counsel also (1) provided B.T. with a copy of the

brief, accompanying motion to withdraw, and a pro se motion to access the record,

and (2) informed B.T. of his rights to review the record, to file a pro se response to

the Anders brief, and to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court

should we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

B.T. did not file a pro se response in this court. The State declined to file a

brief but indicated in a letter that it agreed with B.T.’s counsel that B.T. “has no

meritorious grounds upon which to advance an appeal in this case.”

Because B.T.’s counsel filed an Anders brief, we must independently examine

the record to decide whether counsel correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous.

See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After carefully

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find nothing in the record, but for the

modifiable court costs discussed below, that might arguably support the appeal. Thus,

we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

3 Regarding the court costs assessed, (1) the clerk’s record contains a bill of costs

for $148 and (2) the supplemental clerk’s record contains a bill of costs for $31; these

costs are for preparation of the clerk’s records for appeal, certification-and-seal fees,

and “District Clerk’s Fees.” The transfer order did not assess costs, the trial court

appointed counsel for B.T. at trial and on appeal,1 B.T.’s docketing statement

indicates that he is indigent, and the reporter’s record was filed without prepayment.

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 51.10(f), 56.02. Nothing in the record shows that B.T.

has ceased to be indigent. See generally In re K.C.A., 36 S.W.3d 501 (Tex. 2000).

Accordingly, we delete a total of $179––all the fees assessed by the trial-court clerk in

this appeal—from the two bills of costs. See In re C.J., No. 02-24-00070-CV, 2024 WL

3978048, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2024, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem.

op.).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. If

B.T. wishes to seek further review of this case, he must either file a pro se petition for

review in the Texas Supreme Court or retain an attorney to file a petition for review in

the Texas Supreme Court. See In re D.J., No. 02-20-00386-CV, 2021 WL 2586610, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Tex. R. App. P.

53.2 (listing required contents of petition for review), 53.7(a) (providing that petition

for review must be filed 45 days after the date of this court’s judgment or—if a timely

At the beginning of the transfer hearing, the trial court informed B.T. that it 1

would appoint an attorney for him to appeal if he could not afford one. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 56.01(d)–(f).

4 motion for rehearing or a timely motion for en banc reconsideration is filed in this

court—within 45 days of this court’s last ruling on such motions).

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell Justice

Delivered: January 30, 2026