In Re Commitment of Richard Darren Goodwin Appeal 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. 09-16-00456-CV ____________________ IN RE COMMITMENT OF RICHARD DARREN GOODWIN _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 05-06-04904-CV ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 14, 2016, Richard Darren Goodwin filed a notice of appeal concerning a hearing that Goodwin alleged was held on June 23, 2016, in a sexually violent predator commitment case. We questioned our jurisdiction and the appellant filed a reply in which he acknowledges that he was civilly committed in an order signed on October 4, 2005. Generally, the trial court retains jurisdiction while the commitment order remains in effect and we lack appellate jurisdiction when the trial court modifies a commitment order without ending the court’s supervision of the committed person and without making the otherwise 1 interlocutory order appealable. In re Commitment of Cortez, 405 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.); see also In re Commitment of Escobar, No. 09-16-00231-CV, 2016 WL 4040167, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 28, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re Commitment of Goodwin, No. 09-12-00403-CV, 2013 WL 4399145, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 15, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re Commitment of Richards, 395 S.W.3d 905, 910 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2013, pet. denied). Goodwin has not identified a signed order by the trial court that is appealable at this time. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). APPEAL DISMISSED. ________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on January 18, 2017 Opinion Delivered January 19, 2017 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, 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.