in Re Commitment of Jerry Hannah ( 2013 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-12-00414-CV
_________________
IN RE COMMITMENT OF JERRY HANNAH
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 05-08-07799 CV
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In an appeal from an order entered in a sexually-violent-predator proceeding
modifying the terms of a commitment order, changing the entity that approves
where Jerry Hannah must reside, we questioned our appellate jurisdiction over
such order. Upon consideration of the statute and the responses of the parties, we
conclude that the trial court’s order is not appealable, and we also conclude that
mandamus relief on the issues Hannah raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
1
Recently, in In re Commitment of Adams and In re Commitment of Cortez,
we addressed the same issues Hannah raises in his brief, and we concluded that we
did not have appellate jurisdiction over these same issues. In re Commitment of
Adams, No. 09-12-00393-CV, 2013 WL _______, at *___ (Tex. App.—Beaumont
July _______, 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 Adams and Cortez raised issues entitling them to mandamus
relief. See Adams, 2013 WL _______, at *___; Cortez, 2013 WL 3270613, at **2-
6.
For the same reasons stated in Adams and Cortez, we conclude that we lack
appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order dated July 26, 2012, and that
Hannah has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly,
we dismiss Hannah’s appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
___________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on July 10, 2013
Opinion Delivered August 15, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney, and Kreger, JJ.
2