In Re Terry Eugene Woodworth v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-23-00357-CV
__________________
IN RE TERRY EUGENE WOODWORTH
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
9th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 19-07-09306-CV
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, Terry Eugene Woodworth
contends that the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error in
April 2021 by proceeding to trial on the State’s petition to have Woodworth
committed as a sexually violent predator and by having Woodworth appear at his
trial through use of videoconferencing technology in violation of Woodworth’s
statutory right to be physically present for the trial under the version of Health and
Safety Code section 841.061 that was in effect on the date of his trial. See Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.061(d)(1); see also In re Commitment of Bluitt,
605 S.W.3d 199, 204 (Tex. 2020) (the right to appear at trial granted by section
1
841.061(d)(1) includes the right to appear in person); but see Thirty-Sixth Emergency
Order Regarding COVID-19 State of Disaster, 629 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2021).
We may grant mandamus relief to correct a trial court’s abuse of discretion
when an appeal provides an inadequate remedy. 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). “[M]andamus will not issue
when the law provides another plain, adequate, and complete remedy.” In re Tex.
Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609, 613 (Tex. 2006) (orig.
proceeding). A person may appeal following his commitment as a sexually violent
predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.146(b). In fact, Woodworth did
appeal the trial court’s final judgment and order of civil commitment. See In re
Commitment of Woodworth, No. 09-21-00176-CV, 2022 WL 17491819 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont Dec. 8, 2022, pet. denied). Woodworth seeks to challenge the final
judgment and order of commitment, but he cannot do so through mandamus even if
his appellate remedy is no longer available. See In re Robertson, No. 14-16-01013-
CV, 2017 WL 506807, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb 7, 2017, orig.
proceeding [mand. denied]).
Woodworth asks this Court to compel the trial court to reverse the final
judgment and order of civil commitment. In 2022, this Court affirmed the trial
court’s final judgment and our mandate has issued. See Woodworth, 2022 WL
2
17491819, at *5. Woodworth has not shown that he presented his current complaint
to the trial court, but if he had the trial court would be bound by our mandate in the
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 51.1(b).
We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on December 6, 2023
Opinion Delivered December 7, 2023
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
3