Billy Jack Barrera v. the State of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS
                              EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                   EL PASO, TEXAS
                                       ————————————

                                          No. 08-25-00043-CR

                                       ————————————


                                     Billy Jack Barrera, Appellant

                                                       v.

                                     The State of Texas, Appellee



                              On Appeal from the 81st District Court
                                      Karnes County, Texas
                               Trial Court No. 20-01-00001-CRK


                               M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N 1

        A jury convicted Appellant Billy Jack Barrera of one count of cruelty to animals, a third-

degree felony. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 42.092(b)(1). The trial court sentenced Barrera to four years




1
 This case was transferred 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.
confinement. On appeal, Barrera’s counsel filed an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw.

We grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                         I. BACKGROUND

        Barrera was indicted on one count of cruelty to animals. Barrera entered a plea of not guilty,

and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The State presented evidence through multiple live witnesses

who testified that Barrera beat his pit bull repeatedly with a machete. The State also presented

multiple exhibits into evidence, namely photographs of the dog’s extensive injuries and veterinary

records. At the end of the guilt-innocence phase of trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Barrera

elected for the trial court to assess his punishment. The trial court sentenced Barrera to four years’

confinement and ordered him to pay court costs.

                                     II. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

        “A criminal defense attorney’s duty is to zealously represent the interests of his client on

appeal.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (citing Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)). However, “if counsel finds [appellant’s] case to be wholly frivolous,

after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to

withdraw.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Barrera’s counsel did so here, filing an Anders brief and a

motion to withdraw. Id at 738. With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel’s brief

contains a professional evaluation of the record, explains why no arguable points of error exist for

review, and concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Id. at 744–45; High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). We conclude the brief meets the requirements

of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an

appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–75; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812–13. Additionally, in compliance

with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided

Barrera with a copy of the brief, advised him of his right to examine the record and file a response,



                                                   2
and advised him of his right to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

should this Court conclude his appeal is frivolous. Barrera neither requested a copy of the record

nor filed a pro se brief.

                                 III. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

        Once appointed counsel files a compliant Anders brief, a court of appeals must conduct its

own independent review of the record to ascertain whether there are any arguable grounds for the

appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

(en banc). Having reviewed the entire record of this appeal, we conclude the appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406 n.9.

        Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant appellate counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

                                    IV. FURTHER REVIEW

        No substitute counsel will be appointed. Through a retained attorney or by representing

himself, Barrera may ask the Court of Criminal Appeals to review his case by filing a petition for

discretionary review. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals

within 30 days from the date of either: (1) this opinion; or (2) the last timely motion for rehearing

or motion for en banc reconsideration that is overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2,

68.3(a). The petition must also comply with Rule 68.4. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.

                                        V. CONCLUSION

        We affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.




                                              GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice



                                                 3
April 9, 2026

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

(Do Not Publish)




                                               4