Court Opinion

ID: 4116867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-01-19 15:15:23.265428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:24.956954
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-16-00456-CV
                           ____________________

       IN RE COMMITMENT OF RICHARD DARREN GOODWIN

_______________________________________________________           ______________

                   On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 05-06-04904-CV
________________________________________________________           _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On November 14, 2016, Richard Darren Goodwin filed a notice of appeal

concerning a hearing that Goodwin alleged was held on June 23, 2016, in a

sexually violent predator commitment case. We questioned our jurisdiction and the

appellant filed a reply in which he acknowledges that he was civilly committed in

an order signed on October 4, 2005. Generally, the trial court retains jurisdiction

while the commitment order remains in effect and we lack appellate jurisdiction

when the trial court modifies a commitment order without ending the court’s

supervision of the committed person and without making the otherwise

                                        1
interlocutory order appealable. In re Commitment of Cortez, 405 S.W.3d 929, 931

(Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.); see also In re Commitment of Escobar, No.

09-16-00231-CV, 2016 WL 4040167, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 28, 2016,

pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re Commitment of Goodwin, No. 09-12-00403-CV,

2013 WL 4399145, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 15, 2013, pet. denied)

(mem. op.); In re Commitment of Richards, 395 S.W.3d 905, 910 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2013, pet. denied). Goodwin has not identified a signed order by the

trial court that is appealable at this time. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                              ________________________________
                                                      LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                            Justice

Submitted on January 18, 2017
Opinion Delivered January 19, 2017

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

                                          2