Court Opinion

ID: 3075620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:12:29.800457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:34.101833
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               _________________
                                NO. 09-12-00414-CV
                               _________________

                 IN RE COMMITMENT OF JERRY HANNAH

________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 05-08-07799 CV
________________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In an appeal from an order entered in a sexually-violent-predator proceeding

modifying the terms of a commitment order, changing the entity that approves

where Jerry Hannah must reside, we questioned our appellate jurisdiction over

such order. Upon consideration of the statute and the responses of the parties, we

conclude that the trial court’s order is not appealable, and we also conclude that

mandamus relief on the issues Hannah raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                           1
      Recently, in In re Commitment of Adams and In re Commitment of Cortez,

we addressed the same issues Hannah raises in his brief, and we concluded that we

did not have appellate jurisdiction over these same issues. In re Commitment of

Adams, No. 09-12-00393-CV, 2013 WL _______, at *___ (Tex. App.—Beaumont

July _______, no pet. h.); In re Commitment of Cortez, No. 09-12-00385-CV, 2013
WL 3270613, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.). We also

considered whether Adams and Cortez raised issues entitling them to mandamus

relief. See Adams, 2013 WL _______, at *___; Cortez, 2013 WL 3270613, at **2-

6.

      For the same reasons stated in Adams and Cortez, we conclude that we lack

appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order dated July 26, 2012, and that

Hannah has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly,

we dismiss Hannah’s appeal.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                ___________________________
                                                    CHARLES KREGER
                                                          Justice

Submitted on July 10, 2013
Opinion Delivered August 15, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney, and Kreger, JJ.
                                       2