In Re Clarence D. Brown 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. 09-18-00428-CV _______________________ IN RE CLARENCE D. BROWN ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-03-02609-CV ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a mandamus petition, Clarence D. Brown, asks this Court to compel the trial court to either release Brown from civil commitment or order outpatient treatment. Brown has been subject to civil commitment as a sexually violent predator since 2010. According to Brown, a psychological or psychiatric examination was conducted on July 28, 2017, as part of a biennial review. On February 16, 2018, the trial court signed a Biennial Review Order wherein the trial court concluded that Brown should remain civilly committed without modification. See generally Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.101-.102 (West 2017). Brown argues the trial court’s order is void and he is entitled to immediate release from civil commitment 1 due to irregularities that Brown claims occurred in previous biennial reviews. Additionally, he argues he is currently subjected to unauthorized “inpatient” commitment. After reviewing the mandamus petition and the documents contained in the appendix, we conclude that Brown has not established that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion. See In re Commitment of Marks, 230 S.W.3d 241, 244 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, no pet.) (an abuse of discretion occurs only when a trial court’s decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to guiding principles). Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on December 5, 2018 Opinion Delivered December 6, 2018 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.