Court Opinion

ID: 6322218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-11 08:12:30.32139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:42.196792
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-22-00038-CV
                               __________________

          IN RE COMMITMENT OF RAYMOND GLENN SCOTT

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 11-06-06579-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Raymond Glenn Scott filed a notice of appeal from a post-judgment civil

commitment order denying Scott’s request to be transferred to less restrictive

housing. On February 9, 2022, we advised the parties, by letter, that the order does

not appear to be appealable. We asked the parties to respond to our jurisdictional

inquiry by providing us with any rule or statute they claimed could be applied to

Scott’s appeal and explain how those provisions, if any, gave this Court jurisdiction

to consider an appeal of the order. In response, Scott asked the Court to allow the

appeal to proceed as a permissive appeal. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 28.3.

                                         1
      While the trial court retains jurisdiction during the periods that a civil

commitment judgment remains in effect, we lack appellate jurisdiction over

interlocutory orders signed after the judgment in the civil-commitment case becomes

final. See In re Commitment of Welsh, No. 09-21-00139-CV, 2021 WL 2583422, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Commitment of

Bohannan, No. 09-20-00260-CV, 2021 WL 1134307, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont

Mar. 25, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.). This matter also does not comply with the

requirements for a permissive appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3.

      We deny Scott’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                         PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 9, 2022
Opinion Delivered March 10, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

                                        2