From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Commitment of Stewart

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Aug 17, 2017
NO. 09-17-00273-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 17, 2017)

Opinion

NO. 09-17-00273-CV

08-17-2017

IN RE COMMITMENT OF ETHAN TODD STEWART


On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-05-05148-CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ethan Todd Stewart 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). Stewart 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.). Stewart 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).

Stewart 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 August 16, 2017
Opinion Delivered August 17, 2017 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.


Summaries of

In re Commitment of Stewart

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Aug 17, 2017
NO. 09-17-00273-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 17, 2017)
Case details for

In re Commitment of Stewart

Case Details

Full title:IN RE COMMITMENT OF ETHAN TODD STEWART

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Aug 17, 2017

Citations

NO. 09-17-00273-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 17, 2017)