In Re Commitment of Curtis Allen Arnold 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. 09-17-00277-CV ____________________ IN RE COMMITMENT OF CURTIS ALLEN ARNOLD ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15-05-05169-CV ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Curtis Allen Arnold was determined to be a sexually violent predator and committed for sex offender treatment in 2015. See In re Commitment of Arnold, No. 09-15-00499-CV, 2016 WL 4483181, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 25, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). On June 19, 2017, the trial court signed an order denying Arnold’s motion for change of venue. Arnold filed a notice of appeal. We questioned our jurisdiction and the parties filed responses. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. HarCon Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Arnold argues the order denying his 1 motion for a change of venue disposed of all pending claims and parties. In a civil commitment case, however, the trial court retains jurisdiction while the commitment order remains in effect. See In re Commitment of Cortez, 405 S.W.3d 929, 932 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.). Arnold has not identified a signed order by the trial court that is appealable at this time.1 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). APPEAL DISMISSED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on August 16, 2017 Opinion Delivered August 17, 2017 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Arnold requests that we consider his response as a mandamus petition, but neither the form nor the substance of the response presents a valid basis for granting mandamus relief. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 52. Accordingly, the request is denied. 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.