Court Opinion

ID: 9409183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-16 14:07:31.229585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.347409
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Texas
                            ══════════
                             No. 22-1076
                            ══════════

          In re Commitment of Timothy Daniel Renshaw

   ═══════════════════════════════════════
           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

                            PER CURIAM

      A person civilly committed as a sexually violent predator has a
statutory right to petition a trial court for release without the Texas
Civil Commitment Office’s authorization. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE §§ 841.006, .122.      But if the trial court concludes that an
unauthorized petition is frivolous and probable cause does not exist to
believe that the petitioner’s behavioral abnormality has changed such
that the petitioner is no longer likely to engage in a predatory act of
sexual violence, the petition must be denied without a hearing. See id.
§ 841.123(c), (d). Although a “civil commitment proceeding” is generally
“subject to the rules of procedure and appeal for civil cases,” id.
§ 841.146(b), the Legislature has defined “civil commitment proceeding”
to mean “a trial or hearing” conducted under the relevant statutory
provisions, id. § 841.002(3–a).
      Here, the trial court denied pro se Timothy Renshaw’s
unauthorized petition for release without a hearing.          Renshaw
petitioned the court of appeals for writ of habeas corpus and, in the
alternative, requested that the court “consider this a petition for a writ
of mandamus.” The court dismissed his petition for want of original
jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. ___ S.W.3d ___, 2022 WL
16568144, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 1, 2022). But the court
did not address Renshaw’s express request for mandamus relief. Id.; see
also TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b) (providing courts of appeals with broad
original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus); CMH Homes v. Perez,
340 S.W.3d 444, 452 (Tex. 2011) (holding that the court of appeals’
original jurisdiction was invoked when the party specifically requested
that its appeal be treated as a mandamus petition).
      Without    hearing   oral   argument,    we   conditionally   grant
mandamus relief and direct the court of appeals to withdraw its previous
opinion and reconsider Renshaw’s habeas corpus petition as a petition
for writ of mandamus, as he requested. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8; cf. also
CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 454 (when petitioner “specifically requested
mandamus relief in the court of appeals and preserved that issue in this
Court,” “we instruct the court of appeals to consider this appeal as a
petition for writ of mandamus” because “judicial efficiency militates
against requiring” the filing of a separate original proceeding); In re
Kiberu, 262 S.W.3d 806, 806 (Tex. 2008) (conditionally granting writ of
mandamus and directing the court of appeals to withdraw its previous
opinion denying mandamus relief and to reconsider the relators’
petition). Our holding is limited to the procedural requirement that the
court of appeals address Renshaw’s petition for mandamus relief. We
express no opinion on whether mandamus review of a denial of an

                                    2
unauthorized petition for release is appropriate or, if it is, whether
Renshaw would be entitled to mandamus relief. The court of appeals
should resolve these questions in the first instance. We are confident
the court of appeals will promptly comply; our writ will issue only if it
does not.

OPINION DELIVERED: July 14, 2023

                                   3