In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-17-00343-CV
_________________
IN RE JAMES RUBIO
________________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 11-04-04400-CV
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court civilly committed James Rubio for sex offender treatment in
2011. See generally In re Commitment of Rubio, No. 09-11-00602-CV, 2013 WL
541896, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 14, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In
2016, Rubio filed a motion in arrest of judgment and a motion in which he
challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction over the case. Rubio appears to argue that he
is not a repeat sexually violent offender because one of his prior convictions arose
from a proceeding in which he made a no contest plea. In a mandamus petition,
Rubio seeks to compel the trial court to rule on his motions. See generally Safety–
1
Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig.
proceeding).
Rubio’s motions attack a final judgment that, notwithstanding his claim to the
contrary, he failed to establish is void. See Cook v. Cameron, 733 S.W.2d 137, 140
(Tex. 1987). Rubio has not shown that the trial court has a ministerial duty to rule
on the motions at this time. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of
mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on September 27, 2017
Opinion Delivered September 28, 2017
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
2