Court Opinion

ID: 9929279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 08:16:00.168815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:08:05.581304
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-23-00408-CV
                              __________________

                          IN RE JAMES RICHARDS

__________________________________________________________________

                           Original Proceeding
           435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 01-09-05913-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, James Richards contends

the trial court abused its discretion when it signed orders in Richards’ civil

commitment proceeding (“SVP case”). 1 Richards argues that all orders in Trial

      1
       Richards’ mandamus petition is deficient in several respects. Some of the
orders he refers to in his petition were signed by judges other than the respondent.
Richards does not claim and has not shown that he ever asked the respondent to
vacate the orders Richards contends are void. He has neither identified the State of
Texas as the Real Party in Interest nor has he shown that he served a copy of his
mandamus petition on the counsel representing the State in the SVP commitment
case. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We use Rule 2, however, to look beyond these
deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See id. 2.
                                           1
Cause Number 01-09-05913-CV that have been signed by judges sitting as the 435th

District Court are void because the judge presiding as the 221st District Court signed

the original order committing Richards to civil commitment as a sexually violent

predator in 2003. We deny mandamus relief.

      Richards acknowledges that in 2007, the Local Administrative Judge for

Montgomery County transferred Trial Cause Number 01-09-05913-CV from the

221st District Court to the 435th District Court.2 Citing Government Code section

74.093, Richards argues in his mandamus petition that his case “was subject to the

jurisdictional limitation that jurisdiction remains in the committing court.” 3 Richards

      2
        The order, which Richards included in the appendix to his mandamus
petition, states:
           It is hereby ORDERED that all civil commitment of sexually violent
       predator cases under the Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 841,
       filed in Montgomery County, Texas, be assigned to the 435th Judicial
       District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. This order shall include
       all previously filed cases as well as any new cases.
      3
        Section 74.093 requires that local administrative rules provide for
“assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of all cases, subject to jurisdictional
limitations of the district courts and statutory county courts[.]” See Tex. Gov’t Code
Ann. § 74.093(b)(1). The same section provides:
              Rules relating to the transfer of cases or proceedings shall not
       allow the transfer of cases from one court to another unless the cases
       are within the jurisdiction of the court to which it is transferred. When
       a case is transferred from one court to another as provided under this
       section, all processes, writs, bonds, recognizances, or other obligations
       issued from the transferring court are returnable to the court to which
       the case is transferred as if originally issued by that court.
Id. § 74.093(d).
                                           2
misunderstands the provision “subject to jurisdictional limitations” as it is used in

section 74.093. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.093. Both the 221st District Court

and the 435th District Court are district courts of general jurisdiction. See id. §§

24.007; 24.399; 24.579. Therefore, the subject matter of Trial Cause Number 01-09-

05913-CV is “within the jurisdiction of the court to which it is transferred.” See id.

§ 74.093(d). Accordingly, “all processes . . . issued from the transferring court are

returnable to the court to which the case is transferred as if originally issued by that

court.” Id.4

      When the local administrative judge assigned all SVP cases to the 435th

District Court, the 435th District Court became the court of continuing jurisdiction

over Trial Cause Number 01-09-05913-CV. See id. § 74.094. Accordingly, we deny

the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

      PETITION DENIED.
                                                            PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 24, 2024
Opinion Delivered February 1, 2024
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

      4
       Section 74.094 provides:
             A district or statutory county court judge may hear and determine
      a matter pending in any district or statutory county court in the county
      regardless of whether the matter is preliminary or final or whether there
      is a judgment in the matter. The judge may sign a judgment or order in
      any of the courts regardless of whether the case is transferred. The
      judgment, order, or action is valid and binding as if the case were
      pending in the court of the judge who acts in the matter. The authority
      of this subsection applies to an active, former, or retired judge assigned
      to a court having jurisdiction as provided by Subchapter C.
                                           3