From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Commitment of Williams

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Aug 31, 2017
NO. 09-17-00297-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2017)

Opinion

NO. 09-17-00297-CV

08-31-2017

IN RE COMMITMENT OF CHARLES ANTHONY WILLIAMS


On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 08-11-10820-CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charles Anthony Williams was determined to be a sexually violent predator and committed for sex offender treatment. See In re Commitment of Williams, No. 09-09-00515-CV, 2010 WL 5550663, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 21, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.). On July 13, 2017, the trial court signed an order denying Williams's motion for change of venue. Williams filed a notice of appeal. 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). Williams 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.). Williams has not identified a signed order by the trial court that is appealable at this time.

Williams 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.

In response to this Court's suggestion that the appeal is frivolous, Williams argues that the appeal is not frivolous because he faces subsequent hearings that will be conducted in Montgomery County, and the potential jury pool might be tainted by individual members' previous jury service in civil commitment proceedings. Williams's response reveals that his response to this Court's inquiry regarding jurisdiction, which claimed the venue ruling was the final ruling in the case, was less than forthcoming regarding the true status of the litigation. We conclude that the appeal is frivolous. See Tex. R. App. P. 45. In the event Williams files a frivolous appeal with this Court in the future, the Court will consider imposing sanctions. See id.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

/s/_________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice Submitted on August 30, 2017
Opinion Delivered August 31, 2017 Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.


Summaries of

In re Commitment of Williams

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Aug 31, 2017
NO. 09-17-00297-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2017)
Case details for

In re Commitment of Williams

Case Details

Full title:IN RE COMMITMENT OF CHARLES ANTHONY WILLIAMS

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Aug 31, 2017

Citations

NO. 09-17-00297-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2017)