in Re Curtis Adams ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-23-00003-CV
__________________
IN RE CURTIS ADAMS
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 01-10-06658-CV
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Curtis Adams filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the Special
Prosecution Unit and the State Counsel for Offenders. In his Petition, Adams does
not identify the Judge of the 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas as
the respondent nor does he identify any order of the current judge of the 435th
District Court that he claims to have been issued in error, nor does he specify that
the trial court’s ruling, if any, is a clear abuse of discretion for which Adams lacks
an adequate remedy by appeal. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b). The relief
Adams requests in his petition appears to be unrelated to protecting our jurisdiction.
See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a). Adams also has not shown that we may
1
exercise mandamus jurisdiction over the Special Prosecution Unit or the State
Counsel for Offenders.
We note that Adams is subject to an order of civil commitment as a sexually
violent predator. See In re Commitment of Adams, 122 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont 2003, no pet.). The 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
retains jurisdiction while the civil commitment order remains in effect. See In re
Commitment of Adams, 408 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.).
Almost twenty years after this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and issued
the mandate, Adams filed this petition for a writ of mandamus against the Special
Prosecution Unit and the State Counsel for Offenders.
A court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to enforce the court’s
jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a). We may issue a writ of
mandamus against a judge of a district court in our district. Id. § 22.221(b). We may
issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court
when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co.
of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
In his Petition, Adams appears to be complaining about the validity of a
criminal conviction that the State relied upon to prove that Adams was a sexually
violent predator. In a response to the mandamus petition, the State argues all the
2
complaints in the mandamus petition relate to a final felony conviction that can only
be challenged through a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus. See
Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (“The procedure set
forth in Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P., is the exclusive State felony post-conviction
judicial remedy available in Texas.”); see also In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717-
18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).
Adams has failed to show that we may exercise our mandamus jurisdiction to
grant the relief sought. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus.
PETITION DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 18, 2023
Opinion Delivered January 19, 2023
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3