In the Commitment of Stephen Patrick Black Appeal from 274th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00001-CV IN THE COMMITMENT OF Stephen Patrick BLACK From the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 15-1805-CV Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 13, 2019 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Appellant seeks to appeal an order denying his request to appoint counsel to represent him other than the Office of State Counsel for Offenders. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 841.005 (providing for appointment of Office of State Counsel for Offenders to represent indigent person in civil commitment proceeding unless Office of State Counsel for Offenders is unable to represent the indigent person). Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments, and such interlocutory orders as the legislature deems appealable by statute. See Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); Wise v. SR Dallas, LLC, 436 S.W.3d 402, 408 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.). Chapter 841 of the Texas Health and Safety Code governing the appellant’s civil commitment proceedings does not contain any provision authorizing an appeal from an order denying a motion for other appointed counsel. But see In re 04-19-00001-CV State, 556 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2018) (reviewing order regarding appointment of counsel under chapter 841 in mandamus proceeding); In re Fields, 256 S.W.3d 859, 860 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, orig. proceeding) (same). Accordingly, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a written response asserting the trial court’s order is appealable as a final judgment. However, appellant’s motion to appoint counsel was filed on January 5, 2018, and requested the appointment of counsel with regard to his 2018 biennial review. Although the trial court’s ruling on the motion to appoint counsel was delayed until December 6, 2018, the order denying the motion to appoint counsel is an interlocutory ruling which arose in the context of the biennial review proceeding, and the legislature has not deemed such an order to be separately appealable. Because we have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal of a trial court’s interlocutory order denying a motion to appoint counsel in the context of a biennial review proceeding, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. But see In re State, 556 S.W.3d at 822; In re Fields, 256 S.W.3d at 860. We express no opinion regarding the appealability of the trial court’s biennial review order which issue is pending in appeal number 04-18-00798-CV. PER CURIAM -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.
