Court Opinion

ID: 3078232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:33:10.267594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:35:03.511865
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               ___________________
                                NO. 09-11-00602-CV
                               ___________________

                 IN RE COMMITMENT OF JAMES A. RUBIO

_________________________________________________________________ _

                On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                      Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 11-04-04400 CV
________________________________________________________________ _

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      The State filed a motion to dismiss James A. Rubio’s appeal of a civil

commitment that the trial court ordered after a jury found him 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 October 1, 2012, Rubio violated the terms of the SVP order by

leaving his court-ordered residence without prior written authorization from the

trial court, and that Rubio did not voluntarily return to his residence.

                                           1
      On December 6, 2012, we ordered that the appeal would be dismissed with

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

commitment order by returning to the Travis County Residential Center or by

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

arrest. On January 14, 2013, the State notified the Court that on January 7, 2013,

Rubio was apprehended without having voluntarily surrendered. On January 31,

2013, Rubio filed a motion to retain the appeal and reinstate the briefing schedule.

He contends that he is no longer a flight risk.

      Rubio failed to demonstrate that he complied with the trial court’s order

within the time specified in this Court’s order of December 6, 2012. Rubio 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 Rubio failed to

establish good cause for retaining the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with

prejudice.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                               ______________________________
                                                       HOLLIS HORTON
                                                            Justice

Opinion Delivered February 14, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
                                           2