Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell, 02-25-00318-CV, January 30, 2026.
On appeal from the 323rd District Court of Tarrant County
Synopsis
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court’s order transferring a respondent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to complete an eighteen-year determinate sentence for murder, concluding that an independent Anders review revealed no meritorious grounds for appeal. However, the court modified the judgment to strike all assessed court costs, holding that the appellant’s status as an indigent party remained unchanged and unsupported by any evidence of financial improvement.
Relevance to Family Law
While this case arises under Title 3 of the Texas Family Code, its implications extend to all family law practitioners dealing with the intersection of juvenile delinquency and the transition to the adult criminal system. Of particular strategic importance is the appellate court’s sua sponte modification of court costs. For litigators representing indigent clients in high-conflict custody or enforcement actions, this decision reinforces the principle that once indigency is established under the Family Code, it is presumed to continue through the appellate process. Counsel must be vigilant in ensuring that bills of costs generated by district clerks do not circumvent the protections afforded to indigent litigants, particularly when no evidence of a change in financial status has been introduced.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
B.T. entered into an agreement with the State in May 2023, judicially confessing to engaging in delinquent conduct by acting as a party to a murder. The trial court subsequently found him delinquent and assessed an agreed eighteen-year determinate sentence. In May 2025, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) notified the trial court that B.T. would be unable to complete the statutory minimum three-year period of confinement before reaching his nineteenth birthday. Following a hearing conducted within the sixty-day statutory window after the TJJD’s notification, the trial court ordered B.T. transferred to the Institutional Division of the TDCJ. B.T.’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that a thorough examination of the record revealed no issues of arguable merit.
Issues Decided
- Whether any arguable grounds for appeal existed to challenge the juvenile court’s order transferring the respondent to the TDCJ for the completion of a determinate sentence.
- Whether the trial court clerk erroneously assessed court costs against a juvenile appellant who had been declared indigent for the purposes of trial and appeal.
Rules Applied
The court followed the procedural requirements of Anders v. California, as extended to juvenile proceedings by the Texas Supreme Court in In re D.A.S. Under this framework, appointed counsel must provide a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal. Substantively, the court applied Texas Family Code Section 54.11, which governs release or transfer hearings for juveniles serving determinate sentences, and Human Resources Code Section 245.051(c)(2), regarding the inability to complete minimum confinement. Regarding costs, the court applied Texas Family Code Sections 51.10(f) and 56.02, alongside the evidentiary presumption established in In re K.C.A. that indigency continues unless a change in financial status is proven.
Application
The appellate court performed an independent review of the record to determine the frivolity of the appeal. It found that the trial court strictly adhered to the procedural timelines set forth in the Family Code, specifically holding the transfer hearing within sixty days of the TJJD’s referral letter. The court noted that because the transfer was necessitated by the objective statutory impossibility of B.T. completing his minimum term before age nineteen, there were no meritorious challenges to the transfer itself.
However, the application of the law to the bill of costs yielded a different result. The court scrutinized the clerk’s record, which included $179 in total fees for record preparation and certification. Despite these being standard assessments, the court noted that B.T. had been appointed counsel and his docketing statement reflected his indigent status. Because there was no evidence in the record to suggest B.T.’s financial status had improved, the court determined the assessment of these costs was legally unsustainable and modified the judgment accordingly.
Holding
The court held that the juvenile court’s transfer order was proper and that no meritorious issues existed to challenge the respondent’s move to the TDCJ, thereby granting counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirming the core of the judgment.
The court further held that the assessed court costs of $179 must be deleted from the bills of costs. The court reasoned that a party’s indigent status, once established, is presumed to persist through the duration of the litigation unless evidence is presented to the contrary, making the clerk’s assessment of fees against B.T. an error of law.
Practical Application
Practitioners should use this case as a reminder to conduct a secondary audit of all final judgments and bills of costs, even in cases that appear “routine” or “frivolous” under Anders. In the context of juvenile transfers, defense counsel must strictly monitor the sixty-day window following a TJJD referral; any delay beyond that window may provide a rare jurisdictional hook to challenge a transfer. Furthermore, in broader Family Code litigation, if a client has been granted a fee waiver or appointed counsel, any clerk-issued bill of costs should be immediately challenged on appeal to ensure the client’s indigent protections are not eroded by administrative oversight.
Checklists
Preserving Indigency Protections on Appeal
- Verify Appointment of Counsel: Confirm that the record contains an explicit finding of indigency or a signed order appointing counsel under Tex. Fam. Code § 51.10.
- Audit the Bill of Costs: Obtain the clerk’s bill of costs (and any supplemental bills) to ensure that filing, certification, and preparation fees have not been assessed against your indigent client.
- Monitor Financial Testimony: Ensure that no testimony regarding “financial improvement” is admitted without rebuttal, as this is the only mechanism the State can use to overturn the presumption of continued indigency under In re K.C.A.
Navigating Determinate Sentence Transfers
- Statutory Timeline Audit: Confirm that the transfer hearing occurred within 60 days of the date on the TJJD referral letter (Tex. Fam. Code § 54.11(h)).
- Minimum Confinement Review: Calculate whether the juvenile can physically complete the statutory minimum three-year confinement before their 19th birthday; if impossible, the transfer is largely a foregone conclusion barring jurisdictional defects.
- Anders Compliance: If appointed as appellate counsel, ensure the brief provides a “professional evaluation” of the record, specifically addressing the TJJD referral and the hearing’s procedural regularity.
Citation
In the Matter of B.T., No. 02-25-00318-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~a34fbd5b-7da1-454a-8ce5-3ceda5f73378~~
Share this content: