Court Opinion

ID: 3075671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:12:48.917465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:44:58.579489
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               _________________
                                NO. 09-12-00399-CV
                               _________________

                  IN RE COMMITMENT OF CARL RAYSON

________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 05-06-05472 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 Carl Rayson 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 Rayson raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                           1
      Recently, in In re Commitment of Cortez, we addressed the same issues as

are set forth in Rayson’s brief and concluded that we did not have appellate

jurisdiction over these same issues. No. 09-12-00385-CV, 2013 WL 3270613, at

*2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.). We also considered whether

Cortez raised issues entitling him to mandamus relief. See id. at **2-6.

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

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

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

dismiss Rayson’s appeal.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                               ___________________________
                                                   CHARLES KREGER
                                                         Justice

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

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                         2