Opinion
NO. 09-17-00330-CV
10-05-2017
IN RE COMMITMENT OF CURTIS ADAMS
On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 01-10-06658-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Curtis Adams filed a notice of appeal from an order denying a motion for a change of venue. We questioned our jurisdiction and the parties filed responses.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Adams argues the order denying his motion for a change of venue disposed of all pending claims and parties. In a civil commitment case, however, the trial court retains jurisdiction while the commitment order remains in effect. See In re Commitment of Cortez, 405 S.W.3d 929, 932 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2013, no pet.). Adams has not identified a signed order by the trial court that is appealable at this time. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).
Adams requests that we consider his response as a mandamus petition, but neither the form nor the substance of the response presents a valid basis for granting mandamus relief. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 52. Accordingly, the request is denied.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
/s/_________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice Submitted on October 4, 2017
Opinion Delivered October 5, 2017 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.