in Re Clarence D. Brown

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 6, 2018
Docket09-18-00428-CV
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
in Re Clarence D. Brown, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

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

In Re Commitment of Marks
230 S.W.3d 241 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Clarence D. Brown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-clarence-d-brown-texapp-2018.