in Re Clarence D. Brown
This text of in Re Clarence D. Brown (in Re Clarence D. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Clarence D. Brown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-clarence-d-brown-texapp-2018.