Document Info

DocketNumber: 09-17-00496-CV

Filed Date: 2/8/2018

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/8/2018

  • In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    ____________________
    NO. 09-17-00496-CV
    ____________________
    IN RE COMMITMENT OF ADOLPH MARTINEZ
    ________________________________________________________________________
    On Appeal from the 435th District Court
    Montgomery County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 01-04-02245-CV
    ________________________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Adolph Martinez filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his plea to the
    jurisdiction. We questioned our jurisdiction and the parties filed responses. We
    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    Background
    Martinez was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator in an order that
    this Court affirmed on appeal in 2003. See In re Commitment of Martinez, 
    98 S.W.3d 373
    (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, pet. denied). At the time of his commitment, all
    sexually violent predator civil commitment proceedings in Texas originated in
    1
    Montgomery County. Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1188, § 4.01, 1999
    Tex. Gen. Laws 4122, 4146.1 As chapter 841 of the Texas Health and Safety Code
    was originally enacted, section 841.082(c) provided that “[i]mmediately after the
    person’s commitment, the judge shall transfer jurisdiction of the case to a district
    court, other than a family district court, having jurisdiction in the county in which
    the defendant is residing.” 
    Id. at 4148.
    The judgment committing Martinez states in
    part that it was “ORDERED that this cause shall be forthwith transferred to an Ector
    County district court other than a family district court.” There is no indication in the
    mandamus record that the Montgomery County District Clerk transferred the case
    to Ector County while the case was on appeal.
    In 2003, the Legislature amended section 841.082 to provide in subsection (d)
    that “[i]mmediately after the case becomes final for purposes of appeal, the judge
    shall transfer jurisdiction of the case to a district court, other than a family district
    court, having jurisdiction in the county in which the person is residing, except that
    the judge retains jurisdiction of the case with respect to a civil commitment
    proceeding conducted under Subchapters F and G.” Act of May 30, 2003, 78th Leg.,
    R.S., ch. 347, § 24, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 1505, 1516. The enacting language for the
    1
    The statute’s effective date was September 1, 1999. Act of May 30, 1999,
    76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1188, § 4.01, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4122, 4152.
    2
    2003 amendments stated that “[t]he change in law made by this Act in amending
    Chapter 841, Health and Safety Code, applies to civil commitment proceedings
    initiated before, on, or after the effective date of this Act.” 
    Id. § 32,
    2003 Tex. Gen.
    Laws at 1519. Proceedings under Subchapters F and G include biennial reviews and
    unauthorized petitions for release. When this Court’s mandate affirming Martinez’s
    civil commitment issued in 2004, section 841.082(d) provided that the Montgomery
    County Court retained jurisdiction of biennial review proceedings. See 
    id. In 2005,
    the Legislature removed the provision for transferring a civil commitment case to
    the county in which the person is residing. See Act of May 23, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S.,
    ch. 849, § 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2890, 2892.
    In amendments to Chapter 841 of the Texas Health and Safety Code enacted
    in 2015, the Legislature amended a separate section, 841.041, to provide that “[i]f a
    person is referred to the attorney representing the state under Section 841.023, the
    attorney may file, in the court of conviction for the person’s most recent sexually
    violent offense, a petition alleging that the person is a sexually violent predator and
    stating facts sufficient to support the allegation.” Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §
    841.041(a) (West 2017). The 2015 amendments to section 841.082 left subsection
    (d) unchanged. Therefore, “[t]he committing court retains jurisdiction of the case
    with respect to a proceeding conducted under this subchapter, other than a criminal
    3
    proceeding involving an offense under Section 841.085, or to a civil commitment
    proceeding conducted under Subchapters F and G.” 
    Id. § 841.082(d)
    (West Supp.
    2017). The enacting language for the 2015 amendment stated, as follows:
    SECTION 40. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (a–1) of this
    section, the changes in law made by this Act to Chapter 841, Health and
    Safety Code, apply to a civil commitment proceeding under that chapter
    that is initiated on or after the effective date of this Act, regardless of
    when the applicable petition for civil commitment was filed.
    (a–1) The jurisdiction of a district court, the representation of the
    state by the civil division of the special prosecution unit, and the
    representation of a respondent by the Office of State Counsel for
    Offenders or other court-appointed counsel in any civil commitment
    trial, any review of a petition for release, or any biennial review under
    Chapter 841, Health and Safety Code, that is pending on the effective
    date of this Act remain unaffected by this Act until the conclusion of
    that proceeding.
    (b) If a civil commitment requirement imposed under Chapter
    841, Health and Safety Code, before the effective date of this Act
    differs from any of the civil commitment requirements listed in Section
    841.082, Health and Safety Code, as amended by this Act, the
    applicable court with jurisdiction over the committed person shall, after
    notice and hearing, modify the requirement imposed as applicable to
    conform to that section.
    Act of May 21, 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., ch. 845, § 40, 2015 Tex. Sess. Law Serv.
    2700, 2711.
    Martinez filed a “Petition for Biennial Review” in the District Court of Ector
    County, Texas. On August 14, 2017, the Ector County District Court signed an order
    transferring the case to Montgomery County. On September 1, 2017, Martinez filed
    4
    a plea to the jurisdiction in which he contended that the Montgomery County court
    lost jurisdiction of his civil commitment on February 13, 2002, the date the trial court
    signed the judgment. The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction, and Martinez
    filed a notice of appeal.
    Arguments and Analysis
    Martinez concedes that the trial court’s order denying his plea to the
    jurisdiction is an interlocutory order that is not subject to an interlocutory appeal. He
    asks this Court to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus, and allow
    him to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in place of an appellant’s brief. The
    State opposes this request.
    The statute that allows an accelerated appeal from an interlocutory order
    applies to a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. &
    Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2017). The trial court’s order denies a
    plea to the jurisdiction by an individual private citizen. We lack appellate
    jurisdiction. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 205 (Tex. 2001)
    (holding that “when there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order
    or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every
    pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally
    disposes of all claims and all parties.”).
    5
    An interlocutory order may be reviewed by mandamus under appropriate
    circumstances. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 
    340 S.W.3d 444
    , 452–53 (Tex. 2011).
    Addressing an attempted accelerated appeal as an original mandamus proceeding
    may avoid unnecessarily wasting the parties’ time and further judicial resources by
    requiring a separate document with a different title “where the party has expressly
    requested mandamus treatment of its appeal in an uncertain legal environment.” 
    Id. at 453.
    This case presents no potential ground for having proceeded with an
    accelerated appeal. Furthermore, no record has been filed and the merits of the issues
    to be decided have not been briefed. Therefore, no efficient use of judicial resources
    would be realized by shoe-horning Martinez’s attempted accelerated appeal into an
    original mandamus proceeding. Accordingly, the request is denied. We dismiss the
    appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    APPEAL DISMISSED.
    ________________________________
    STEVE McKEITHEN
    Chief Justice
    Submitted on February 7, 2018
    Opinion Delivered February 8, 2018
    Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
    6