In Re Gerald B. Wilson Appeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-16-00140-CV _________________ IN RE GERALD B. WILSON ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 07-02-02127-CV ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Gerald B. Wilson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We notified Wilson that his petition failed to state a valid basis for our jurisdiction, and we instructed Wilson to amend his petition to state a valid basis for habeas jurisdiction or to request mandamus relief. Wilson’s amended petition argues he is being deprived of his liberty by virtue of the trial court’s amendment of its previous order committing Wilson as a sexually violent predator. Our jurisdiction under section 22.221(d) is limited to contempt orders. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). Because section 22.221(d) grants 1 original habeas jurisdiction when a person is restrained “by virtue of an order . . . issued by a court . . . because of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made . . . by the court or judge in a civil case[,]” we lack original habeas jurisdiction to consider an order that does not involve a contemnor’s violation of a previous court order. Id. (emphasis added); see In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 369-70 (Tex. 2011) (court lacked habeas jurisdiction of judgment for constructive contempt under statute describing Texas Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction). Wilson’s confinement does not arise from his alleged violation of the trial court’s order of civil commitment. Although he was given an opportunity to amend his petition, he has not requested mandamus relief. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice and without reference to the merits. PETITION DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on May 25, 2016 Opinion Delivered May 26, 2016 Before McKeithen, C.J., 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.
