In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-20-00260-CV
__________________
IN RE COMMITMENT OF MICHAEL WAYNE BOHANNAN
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 08-07-06907-CV
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2009, appellant Michael Wayne Bohannan was civilly committed as a
sexually violent predator. See In re Commitment of Bohannan, 379 S.W.3d 293, 294-
95 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010), aff’d, 388 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. 2012). Bohannan
appealed the judgment of civil commitment, and while the appeal was pending, he
violated the civil commitment order. See Bohannan v. State, 546 S.W.3d 166, 168
(Tex. Crim. App. 2017). In 2010, this Court reversed the judgment of civil
commitment and granted Bohannan’s request for a new trial, and the Texas Supreme
Court affirmed our decision and ordered the case to be remanded to the trial court.
See In re Commitment of Bohannan, 388 S.W.3d 296, 298, 307 (Tex. 2012); In re
1
Commitment of Bohannan, 379 S.W.3d at 295. In 2013, Bohannan was convicted of
violating the civil commitment order while his appeal was pending and sentenced to
life in prison, and this Court affirmed Bohannan’s conviction. See Bohannan v. State,
No. 09-13-00090-CR, 2014 WL 5490936, at *1, 7 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 29,
2014), aff’d, 546 S.W.3d 166 (not released for publication). The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals affirmed our decision regarding Bohannan’s conviction, noting
that Bohannan was required to follow the terms of his civil commitment order while
his appeal was pending. See Bohannan, 546 S.W.3d at 169, 180.
After Bohannan’s civil commitment case was remanded to the trial court for
a new trial, the State filed a motion to abate the case until Bohannan becomes eligible
for release from the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or release
on parole or mandatory supervision. In 2013, the trial court signed an abatement
order, ordering the case to be abated until Bohannan “becomes eligible for release
on parole or mandatory supervision, or otherwise becomes eligible for release from
the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.” In 2019, the State moved
to dismiss the abatement and set the civil commitment case for trial, because
Bohannan had become eligible for parole, and the trial court granted the State’s
motion. In 2020, Bohannan filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice due to a lack of
standing or, alternatively, because the case is moot or no longer ripe for adjudication.
After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied Bohannan’s motion. Bohannan
2
filed a notice of interlocutory appeal complaining about the trial court’s order
denying his motion to dismiss. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.1. The State questioned our
jurisdiction over this appeal, arguing that Bohannan filed an interlocutory appeal
without authority to do so.
Generally, the trial court retains jurisdiction while the commitment order
remains in effect, and we lack appellate jurisdiction when a committed person is still
under the trial court’s supervision and when the trial court does not make an
otherwise interlocutory order appealable. See In re Commitment of Cortez, 405
S.W.3d 929, 932 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.). Given the fact that
Bohannan has not identified any statute that authorizes our review of his complaints
through an interlocutory appeal, Bohannan has no right to appeal the trial court’s
order denying his motion to dismiss. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on February 16, 2021
Opinion Delivered March 25, 2021
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3