Opinion
NO. 09-12-00382-CV
08-15-2013
IN RE COMMITMENT OF MICHAEL MCKINNEY
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 03-09-06910 CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In an appeal from an order entered in a sexually-violent-predator proceeding modifying the terms of a commitment order, changing the entity that approves where Michael McKinney must reside, we questioned our appellate jurisdiction over such order. Upon consideration of the statute and the responses of the parties, we conclude that the trial court's order is not appealable, and we also conclude that mandamus relief on the issues McKinney raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Recently, in In re Commitment of Cortez, we addressed the same issues as are set forth in McKinney's brief and concluded that we did not have appellate jurisdiction over these same issues. No. 09-12-00385-CV, 2013 WL 3270613, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.). We also considered whether Cortez raised issues entitling him to mandamus relief. See id. at **2-6.
For the same reasons stated in Cortez, we conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court's order dated July 26, 2012, and that McKinney has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we dismiss McKinney's appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
____________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.