Court Opinion

ID: 4188949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-07-24 22:18:40.022021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:45.502778
License: Public Domain

In The

                                                                 Court of Appeals
                                              Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                                                               ____________________
                                                                 NO. 09-17-00185-CV
                                                               ____________________

                                        IN RE COMMITMENT OF ROBERT LEOS
________________________________________________________________________

                                             On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                                                  Montgomery County, Texas
                                                Trial Cause No. 12-02-01648-CV
________________________________________________________________________

                                                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

              On May 22, 2017, Robert Leos filed a notice of appeal from an order denying

a motion to appoint an expert to assist Leos in a sexually violent predator

commitment case.1 We questioned our jurisdiction, and Leos and the State filed

replies.

              On April 25, 2017, the trial court signed an order denying Leos’s motion to

appoint an expert witness and an order denying Leos’s motion to abate further

                                                            
              1
         Leos was civilly committed on July 25, 2012. See generally In re
Commitment of Leos, No. 09-12-00523-CV, 2013 WL 5658380, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont Oct. 17, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). Leos is seeking to appeal trial court
orders incidental to a biennial review of that civil commitment.
                                                                         1
 
 
 

proceedings in the trial court. Neither order contains language indicating that the

trial court intended to make a final disposition of the civil commitment.

      Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har–

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Leos neither claims that the trial court

conducted a jury trial regarding his release from civil commitment, nor has he

identified a signed order by the trial court that Leos may appeal as an accelerated

appeal. See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a), (d) (West

Supp. 2016). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.

R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                              ________________________________
                                                      CHARLES KREGER
                                                           Justice

Submitted on July 19, 2017
Opinion Delivered July 20, 2017

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

                                          2