Court Opinion

ID: 9364822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 08:09:19.26849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.576743
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-23-00003-CV
                               __________________

                             IN RE CURTIS ADAMS

__________________________________________________________________

                           Original Proceeding
           435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 01-10-06658-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Curtis Adams filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the Special

Prosecution Unit and the State Counsel for Offenders. In his Petition, Adams does

not identify the Judge of the 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas as

the respondent nor does he identify any order of the current judge of the 435th

District Court that he claims to have been issued in error, nor does he specify that

the trial court’s ruling, if any, is a clear abuse of discretion for which Adams lacks

an adequate remedy by appeal. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b). The relief

Adams requests in his petition appears to be unrelated to protecting our jurisdiction.

See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a). Adams also has not shown that we may

                                          1
exercise mandamus jurisdiction over the Special Prosecution Unit or the State

Counsel for Offenders.

      We note that Adams is subject to an order of civil commitment as a sexually

violent predator. See In re Commitment of Adams, 122 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2003, no pet.). The 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas

retains jurisdiction while the civil commitment order remains in effect. See In re

Commitment of Adams, 408 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.).

Almost twenty years after this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and issued

the mandate, Adams filed this petition for a writ of mandamus against the Special

Prosecution Unit and the State Counsel for Offenders.

      A court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to enforce the court’s

jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a). We may issue a writ of

mandamus against a judge of a district court in our district. Id. § 22.221(b). We may

issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court

when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co.

of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer,

827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

      In his Petition, Adams appears to be complaining about the validity of a

criminal conviction that the State relied upon to prove that Adams was a sexually

violent predator. In a response to the mandamus petition, the State argues all the

                                         2
complaints in the mandamus petition relate to a final felony conviction that can only

be challenged through a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus. See

Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (“The procedure set

forth in Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P., is the exclusive State felony post-conviction

judicial remedy available in Texas.”); see also In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717-

18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).

      Adams has failed to show that we may exercise our mandamus jurisdiction to

grant the relief sought. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus.

      PETITION DISMISSED.

                                                          PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 18, 2023
Opinion Delivered January 19, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

                                         3