Opinion
NO. 09-17-00275-CV
08-17-2017
IN RE COMMITMENT OF RANDY JOE HOWARD
On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 09-07-06455-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Randy Joe Howard 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). Howard 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.). Howard 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).
Howard 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/_________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice Submitted on August 16, 2017
Opinion Delivered August 17, 2017 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.