in Re Gerald B. Wilson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 22, 2021
• Docket: 09-21-00066-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00066-CV __________________

IN RE GERALD B. WILSON __________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 07-02-02127-CV __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Gerald B. Wilson argues the trial court

abused its discretion by failing to rule on two pro se motions that Wilson filed while

he was represented by State Counsel for Offenders as statutorily appointed counsel

in a sexually violent predator civil commitment proceeding. See generally Tex.

Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.005(a). Wilson contends that he wants to represent

himself in his next biennial review proceeding. See generally Tex. Health & Safety

Code Ann. § 841.102. Wilson argues that the trial court has a ministerial duty to rule

on his pro se motions.

1 A trial court does not have a ministerial duty to rule on pro se motions filed

by a person who is represented by counsel in the case. See In re S.V., 599 S.W.3d

25, 44 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g); In re Stanley, No. 09-

15-00204-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6793, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 2,

2015, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 21, 2021 Opinion Delivered April 22, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.