In Re Commitment of Richard HauboisAppeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _____________________ NO. 09-12-00412-CV _____________________ IN RE COMMITMENT OF RICHARD HAUBOIS __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 07-09-08953 CV __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In an appeal from an order entered in a sexually-violent-predator proceeding, we are asked to address whether we possess appellate jurisdiction over an order changing the entity that approves where Richard Haubois is required to reside. We conclude that the trial court s order is not appealable, and we also conclude that mandamus relief on the issues Haubois raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Recently, in In re Commitment of Holt and In re Commitment of Cortez, we addressed the same issues Haubois raises in his brief, and we concluded that we 1 did not have appellate jurisdiction over these same issues. In re Commitment of Holt, No. 09-12-00406-CV, 2013 WL ______, at *__ (Tex. App. Beaumont July 11, 2013, no pet. h.); In re Commitment of Cortez, No. 09-12-00385-CV, 2013 WL 3270613, at *2 (Tex. App. Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.). We also considered whether Holt and Cortez raised issues entitling them to mandamus relief. See Holt, 2013 WL _______, at *__; Cortez, 2013 WL 3270613, at **2-6. For the same reasons stated in Holt and Cortez, we conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court s order dated July 26, 2012, and that Haubois has not demonstrated that he should receive mandamus relief. Accordingly, we dismiss Haubois s appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. ___________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on July 10, 2013 Opinion Delivered August 15, 2013 Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.