In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00179-CV
__________________
IN RE LONNIE KADE WELSH
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 15-01-00659-CV
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a mandamus petition, Lonnie Kade Welsh complains that the trial court
failed to rule on Welsh’s objections to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a
biennial review of his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator and that the
trial court failed to rule on Welsh’s unauthorized petition for release from civil
commitment. Welsh asks this Court to overturn the trial court’s biennial review order
and compel the trial court to rule on Welsh’s unauthorized petition for release from
civil commitment. The State filed a response to the petition at this Court’s request.
And Welsh filed a reply to the State’s response.
1
The mandamus record shows that the trial court signed a biennial review order
on October 7, 2020. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.101-.102. In its
order, the trial court found, “there is no evidence submitted to the Court to date to
suggest that sex offender treatment of [Welsh] has resulted in his behavioral
abnormality having changed to the extent that [Welsh] is no longer likely to engage
in a predatory act of sexual violence.” The mandamus record also shows that the trial
court signed an order denying Welsh’s unauthorized petition for release from civil
commitment. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.123.
A writ of mandamus may issue against a district judge to compel the
performance of a ministerial act or duty, or to correct a clear abuse of discretion
when no adequate remedy by appeal exists. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148
S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d
833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the entire record before
us, we conclude that the relator has not shown that he is entitled to the relief sought
in his petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ
of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on August 11, 2021
Opinion Delivered August 12, 2021
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
2
in Re Lonnie Kade Welsh
Combined Opinion