Court Opinion

ID: 3075624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:12:31.38277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:28.616273
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                             _____________________

                               NO. 09-12-00451-CV
                             _____________________

                  IN RE COMMITMENT OF JACK KIRSCH

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                      Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 07-05-04726 CV
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In an appeal from an order entered in a sexually-violent-predator proceeding,

we are asked to address whether we possess appellate jurisdiction over an order

changing the entity that approves where Jack Kirsch is required to reside. We

conclude that the trial court’s order is not appealable, and we also conclude that

mandamus relief on the issues Kirsch raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

      Recently, in In re Commitment of Holt and In re Commitment of Cortez, we

addressed the same issues Kirsch raises in his brief, and we concluded that we did

                                           1
not have appellate jurisdiction over these same issues. In re Commitment of Holt,

No. 09-12-00406-CV, 2013 WL ______, at *__ (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 11,

2013, no pet. h.); In re Commitment of Cortez, No. 09-12-00385-CV, 2013 WL
3270613, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.). We also

considered whether Holt and Cortez raised issues entitling them to mandamus

relief. See Holt, 2013 WL _______, at *__; Cortez, 2013 WL 3270613, at **2-6.

      For the same reasons stated in Holt and Cortez, we conclude that we lack

appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order dated July 26, 2012, and that

Kirsch has not demonstrated that he should receive mandamus relief. Accordingly,

we dismiss Kirsch’s appeal.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                              ___________________________
                                                     HOLLIS HORTON
                                                          Justice

Submitted on July 10, 2013
Opinion Delivered August 15, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                          2