In Re Commitment of Robert Leos 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. 09-17-00185-CV ____________________ IN RE COMMITMENT OF ROBERT LEOS ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12-02-01648-CV ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 22, 2017, Robert Leos filed a notice of appeal from an order denying a motion to appoint an expert to assist Leos in a sexually violent predator commitment case.1 We questioned our jurisdiction, and Leos and the State filed replies. On April 25, 2017, the trial court signed an order denying Leos’s motion to appoint an expert witness and an order denying Leos’s motion to abate further 1 Leos was civilly committed on July 25, 2012. See generally In re Commitment of Leos, No. 09-12-00523-CV, 2013 WL 5658380, at *1 (Tex. App.— Beaumont Oct. 17, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). Leos is seeking to appeal trial court orders incidental to a biennial review of that civil commitment. 1 proceedings in the trial court. Neither order contains language indicating that the trial court intended to make a final disposition of the civil commitment. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har– Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Leos neither claims that the trial court conducted a jury trial regarding his release from civil commitment, nor has he identified a signed order by the trial court that Leos may appeal as an accelerated appeal. See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a), (d) (West Supp. 2016). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). APPEAL DISMISSED. ________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on July 19, 2017 Opinion Delivered July 20, 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.
