In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-12-00386-CV
____________________
IN RE COMMITMENT OF GEORGE CORLISS
______________________________________________________ _
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 01-09-05912 CV
_______________________________________________________ _
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In April 2002, the trial court rendered a final judgment and an order civilly
committing George Corliss 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 Corliss to reside in Fannin
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 Corliss “reside in a Texas
residential facility under contract with the Office of Violent Sex Offender
1
Management (OVSOM) or at another location or facility approved by the
OVSOM.” Corliss is one of many persons affected by similar modification orders
signed by the trial court on July 26. Corliss asserts four appellate issues
challenging the modification order. Because the order is not appealable and
mandamus relief is not warranted, we dismiss Corliss’s appeal.
The trial court’s July 26 order modified a requirement of Corliss’s SVP
treatment without finally disposing of the commitment case and no interlocutory
appeal is statutorily authorized; thus, Corliss’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). However, Corliss asks that
we alternatively consider his brief as a request for mandamus relief. For the
reasons stated in Cortez, we will address Corliss’s issues as a mandamus petition.
See id. at **6-8.
In issues one and two, Corliss challenges the trial court’s refusal to allow
counsel to make objections during the modification proceedings, consideration of
the motion to modify and objections on submission, and refusal to allow Corliss to
communicate with his counsel or present evidence during the proceedings. Corliss
further contends that the State must “serve an accurate and signed copy of a
2
pleading” upon both the person whose commitment order the State seeks to modify
and the person’s counsel.
As we have previously explained, 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)). Corliss 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. Corliss 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, Corliss 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, Corliss disavowed a constitutional challenge to the statute in the trial
3
court. See id. The trial court’s July 26 order did not alter Corliss’s status to a more
restrictive custody. See id.
In issue four, Corliss contends that he was civilly committed before section
841.082(a)(1)’s enactment date. Section 841.082(a)(1) of the SVP statute provides
that a civil commitment order must require the person to reside in a Texas
residential facility under contract with OVSOM or at another location or facility
approved by OVSOM. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.082(a)(1) (West
Supp. 2012). The provision’s effective date is September 1, 2005. See Act of May
23, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 849, § 9, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2890, 2893.
As we explained in Cortez, “the 1999 SVP statute permitted the trial court to
order a committed person to reside in a particular place and allowed the
commitment requirements to be modified.” Cortez, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854,
at *16; see Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1188, § 4.01, sec. 841.082(a),
1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4147 (amended 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011) (current version at
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.082(a) (West Supp. 2012)). The 2003
statute gave the trial court the authority to modify commitment requirements and
applied to persons committed before the effective date of the amendment. Cortez,
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854, at **15-16; see Act of May 30, 2003, 78th Leg.,
R.S., ch. 347, §§ 24, 32, sec. 841.082(b), 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 1505, 1517, 1519
4
(amended 2005, 2007, 2011) (current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §
841.082(e) (West Supp. 2012)). Thus, under the law in effect for pre-existing
orders, the trial court had the discretion to modify the residency requirement to
accomplish what the Legislature required under the 2005 amendment to the SVP
statute. Cortez, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854, at *16; see Act of May 23, 2005,
79th Leg., R.S., ch. 849, § 3, sec. 841.082(a)(1), 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2891
(amended 2007, 2011) (current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §
841.082(a)(1) (West Supp. 2012)). The trial court could in its discretion order
Corliss to live in an OVSOM-approved facility and did not abuse its discretion by
doing so. See Cortez, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7854, at **16-17. Because we lack
appellate jurisdiction, and Corliss’s complaints do not warrant mandamus relief,
we dismiss Corliss’s appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on July 10, 2013
Opinion Delivered August 15, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
5