In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-12-00421-CV
____________________
IN RE COMMITMENT OF JOSE SALAZAR
______________________________________________________ _
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 06-09-09200 CV
_______________________________________________________ _
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In April 2007, the trial court rendered a final judgment and an order civilly
committing Jose Salazar for outpatient treatment and supervision pursuant to the
sexually violent predator statute. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-
.151 (West 2010 & Supp. 2012). The order required Salazar to reside in Harris
County, Texas. On July 26, 2012, in response to a motion to modify filed by the
Office of Violent Sex Offender Management (“OVSOM”), the trial court modified
the judgment and civil commitment order to require that Salazar reside in a Texas
residential facility under contract with OVSOM or at another location or facility
1
approved by OVSOM. Salazar is one of several persons affected by similar orders
signed by the trial court on July 26. Salazar asserts three appellate issues
challenging the modification order. Because the order is not appealable and
mandamus relief is not warranted, we dismiss Salazar’s appeal.
The trial court’s July 26 order modified a requirement of Salazar’s SVP
treatment without finally disposing of the commitment case and no interlocutory
appeal is statutorily authorized; thus, Salazar’s notice of appeal fails to invoke our
appellate jurisdiction. See In re Commitment of Cortez, No. 09-12-00385-CV, ___
S.W.3d ___, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854, at **5-6 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June
27, 2013, no pet. h.) (not yet released for publication). Salazar asks that we
alternatively consider his brief as a request for mandamus relief. For the reasons
stated in Cortez, we will address Salazar’s issues as a mandamus petition. See id. at
**6-8.
In issues one and two, Salazar complains that his counsel was not allowed to
make objections during the modification proceedings, he was not allowed to meet
with his counsel, he was not allowed to testify or present evidence, the trial court
considered the motion to modify and objections on submission, and that the State
must serve a copy of the pleading upon both the person whose commitment order
the State seeks to modify and the person’s counsel. In Cortez, we explained that
2
the trial court may modify SVP commitment requirements “‘at any time after
notice to each affected party to the proceedings and a hearing.’” Id. at *8 (quoting
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.082(e) (West Supp. 2012)). Salazar
received notice through counsel, appeared before the trial court after filing written
objections to OVSOM’s motion to modify, and personally appeared in court when
the trial court modified the civil commitment order. See id. at **8-10. Moreover,
because of the limited administrative purpose of modification to conform to
changes made by the Legislature, the opportunity to be heard through written
submission alone does not violate the SVP statute or due process. Id. at *11.
Salazar has not shown what his unaddressed objections would have been, or that a
contemporaneous objection was necessary to preserve error. See id. at *13.
In issue three, Salazar argues that the modification procedure forces civilly
committed persons to reside in locked residential facilities where conditions are
punitive, in violation of due process. Along with numerous other civilly committed
persons, Salazar disavowed a constitutional challenge to the statute in the trial
court. See id. The trial court’s July 26 order did not alter Salazar’s status to a more
restrictive custody. See id. Because we lack appellate jurisdiction, and Salazar’s
complaints do not warrant mandamus relief, we dismiss Salazar’s appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
3
________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on July 10, 2013
Opinion Delivered August 15, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
4