Court Opinion

ID: 3077284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:25:59.127296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:32:59.080621
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               ___________________
                                NO. 09-12-00470-CV
                               ___________________

            IN RE COMMITMENT OF JOHN MICHAEL ENARD

_________________________________________________________________ _

                On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                      Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 12-01-00977 CV
________________________________________________________________ _

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      The State filed a motion to dismiss John Michael Enard’s appeal of a civil

commitment, ordered after a jury found Enard to be a sexually violent predator.

See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.001-.151 (West 2010 & Supp. 2012)

(SVP statute). The SVP commitment order was not stayed pending appeal. See

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.081(a) (West 2010). The State alleged that

on January 29, 2013, Enard violated the terms of the SVP order by leaving his

court-ordered residence without prior written authorization from the trial court, and

that Enard did not voluntarily return to his residence.

                                          1
        On March 21, 2013, we ordered that the appeal would be dismissed with

prejudice unless, within ten days, Enard complied with the trial court’s SVP

commitment order by returning to the Southeast Texas Transitional Center or by

surrendering himself to an officer with the power to execute the warrant for his

arrest. Enard has not shown that he has complied with the trial court’s order within

the time specified in this Court’s order of March 21, 2013.

        Enard failed to comply with a court order. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). We

provided an opportunity to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed, but

Enard has not shown that good cause exists to retain his appeal. The appeal is

dismissed with prejudice. See In re Commitment of Rubio, No. 09-11-00602-CV,

2013 WL 541896, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 14, 2013, no pet. h.) (mem.

op.).

        APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                             ______________________________
                                                     HOLLIS HORTON
                                                          Justice

Opinion Delivered April 11, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

                                         2