Opinion
NO. 09-12-00451-CV
08-15-2013
IN RE COMMITMENT OF JACK KIRSCH
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 07-05-04726 CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In an appeal from an order entered in a sexually-violent-predator proceeding, we are asked to address whether we possess appellate jurisdiction over an order changing the entity that approves where Jack Kirsch is required to reside. We conclude that the trial court's order is not appealable, and we also conclude that mandamus relief on the issues Kirsch raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Recently, in In re Commitment of Holt and In re Commitment of Cortez, we addressed the same issues Kirsch raises in his brief, and we concluded that we did not have appellate jurisdiction over these same issues. In re Commitment of Holt, No. 09-12-00406-CV, 2013 WL _, at *_ (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 11, 2013, no pet. h.); In re Commitment of Cortez, No. 09-12-00385-CV, 2013 WL 3270613, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.). We also considered whether Holt and Cortez raised issues entitling them to mandamus relief. See Holt, 2013 WL _, at *_; Cortez, 2013 WL 3270613, at **2-6.
For the same reasons stated in Holt and Cortez, we conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court's order dated July 26, 2012, and that Kirsch has not demonstrated that he should receive mandamus relief. Accordingly, we dismiss Kirsch's appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
___________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.