Opinion
No. 09-03-539 CV
Submitted on August 24, 2004.
Opinion Delivered August 31, 2004.
On Appeal from the 221st District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 02-11-07554-CV.
Jay Scott MacDonald, State Counsel for Offenders, Huntsville, for appellant.
Gina M. Debottis, Special Prosecution Unit, Civil Division, Huntsville, for appellee.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., BURGESS and GAULTNEY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to Title 11, Chapter 841 of the Health and Safety Code (the SVP statute), the State of Texas filed a petition to civilly commit Timothy Rosales, Jr. as a sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.150 (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2004). The trial court found that Rosales suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence and entered a final judgment and order of civil commitment. Rosales appeals presenting two issues.
In his first issue, Rosales argues the SVP statute is unconstitutional because it is punitive in nature. This court has repeatedly held the SVP statute is not punitive, In re Commitment of Larkin, 127 S.W.3d 930 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2004, no pet.); In re Commitment of Morales, 98 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2003, pet. denied); In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2002, pet. denied); and Beasley v. Molett, 95 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2002, pet. denied), and the Texas Supreme Court has not written on this issue. Issue one is overruled.
But see Fisher v. State, 123 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, pet. filed).
Rosales' second issue contends the SVP statute and the concomitant "Final Judgment and Order of Commitment" are unconstitutionally vague. Rosales' complaints regarding the order of commitment are based upon its conformance with the statute. This court has held the statute is not unconstitutionally vague, see Larkin, 127 S.W.3d at 932; Morales, 98 S.W.3d at 291; Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 887-88, and the Texas Supreme Court has not written on this issue. Accordingly, we decline to find the statute and the attendant judgment are unconstitutionally vague. Issue two is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.