In Re James Rubio 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. 09-17-00343-CV _________________ IN RE JAMES RUBIO ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 11-04-04400-CV ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court civilly committed James Rubio for sex offender treatment in 2011. See generally In re Commitment of Rubio, No. 09-11-00602-CV, 2013 WL 541896, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 14, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In 2016, Rubio filed a motion in arrest of judgment and a motion in which he challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction over the case. Rubio appears to argue that he is not a repeat sexually violent offender because one of his prior convictions arose from a proceeding in which he made a no contest plea. In a mandamus petition, Rubio seeks to compel the trial court to rule on his motions. See generally Safety– 1 Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). Rubio’s motions attack a final judgment that, notwithstanding his claim to the contrary, he failed to establish is void. See Cook v. Cameron, 733 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex. 1987). Rubio has not shown that the trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on the motions at this time. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on September 27, 2017 Opinion Delivered September 28, 2017 Before Kreger, Horton, 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.
