Court Opinion

ID: 4208293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-10-02 18:17:46.284319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:30.719003
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________
                               NO. 09-17-00343-CV
                              _________________

                              IN RE JAMES RUBIO

________________________________________________________________________

                              Original Proceeding
              435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 11-04-04400-CV
________________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      The trial court civilly committed James Rubio for sex offender treatment in

2011. See generally In re Commitment of Rubio, No. 09-11-00602-CV, 2013 WL
541896, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 14, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In

2016, Rubio filed a motion in arrest of judgment and a motion in which he

challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction over the case. Rubio appears to argue that he

is not a repeat sexually violent offender because one of his prior convictions arose

from a proceeding in which he made a no contest plea. In a mandamus petition,

Rubio seeks to compel the trial court to rule on his motions. See generally Safety–

                                          1
 
 
 

Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig.

proceeding).

      Rubio’s motions attack a final judgment that, notwithstanding his claim to the

contrary, he failed to establish is void. See Cook v. Cameron, 733 S.W.2d 137, 140

(Tex. 1987). Rubio has not shown that the trial court has a ministerial duty to rule

on the motions at this time. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of

mandamus.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                          PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 27, 2017
Opinion Delivered September 28, 2017

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

                                          2