In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-12-00391-CV
_________________
IN RE COMMITMENT OF ERICK LAWSON
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 07-08-08159 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 Erick Lawson 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 Lawson raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
1
Recently, in In re Commitment of Holt and In re Commitment of Cortez, we
addressed the same issues Lawson 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
Lawson has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly,
we dismiss Lawson’s appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
___________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on July 10, 2013
Opinion Delivered August 15, 2013
Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
2