Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00001-CV
IN THE COMMITMENT OF Stephen Patrick BLACK
From the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-1805-CV
Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 13, 2019
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Appellant seeks to appeal an order denying his request to appoint counsel to represent him
other than the Office of State Counsel for Offenders. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.
§ 841.005 (providing for appointment of Office of State Counsel for Offenders to represent
indigent person in civil commitment proceeding unless Office of State Counsel for Offenders is
unable to represent the indigent person). Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction over final
judgments, and such interlocutory orders as the legislature deems appealable by statute. See Bison
Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); Wise v. SR Dallas, LLC, 436
S.W.3d 402, 408 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.). Chapter 841 of the Texas Health and Safety
Code governing the appellant’s civil commitment proceedings does not contain any provision
authorizing an appeal from an order denying a motion for other appointed counsel. But see In re
04-19-00001-CV
State, 556 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2018) (reviewing order regarding appointment of counsel under
chapter 841 in mandamus proceeding); In re Fields, 256 S.W.3d 859, 860 (Tex. App.—Beaumont
2008, orig. proceeding) (same). Accordingly, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellant filed a written response asserting the trial court’s order is appealable as a final
judgment. However, appellant’s motion to appoint counsel was filed on January 5, 2018, and
requested the appointment of counsel with regard to his 2018 biennial review. Although the trial
court’s ruling on the motion to appoint counsel was delayed until December 6, 2018, the order
denying the motion to appoint counsel is an interlocutory ruling which arose in the context of the
biennial review proceeding, and the legislature has not deemed such an order to be separately
appealable. Because we have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal of a trial court’s interlocutory
order denying a motion to appoint counsel in the context of a biennial review proceeding, this
appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. But see In re State, 556 S.W.3d at 822; In re Fields,
256 S.W.3d at 860. We express no opinion regarding the appealability of the trial court’s biennial
review order which issue is pending in appeal number 04-18-00798-CV.
PER CURIAM
-2-