in Re Lonnie Kade Welsh

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 19, 2018
• Docket: 09-18-00126-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-18-00126-CV _________________

IN RE LONNIE KADE WELSH

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15-01-00659-CV ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a mandamus petition, Lonnie Kade Welsh raises two unrelated complaints.

First, he complains that the trial court failed to grant his January 30, 2017, request

for an order regarding the handling of his communications with his appellate counsel

by the Texas Civil Commitment Office. This complaint appears to concern a pro se

filing made in a case in which Welsh is represented by counsel. See generally In re

Commitment of Welsh, No. 09-15-00498-CV, 2016 WL 4483165, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont Aug. 25, 2016, pet. denied). A trial court is free to disregard any pro se

motions presented by a party represented by counsel. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d

919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); see also In re Commitment of Adams, 408 S.W.3d

906, 909 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.).

Second, Welsh argues that as a result of changes to Chapter 841 effective after

the date of his commitment, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to conduct a biennial

review of his civil commitment. The 2015 amendments to Chapter 841 left

unchanged section 841.082(d), which provides that the committing court retains

jurisdiction of the biennial review of the case. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.

§ 841.082(d) (West Supp. 2017) (“The committing court retains jurisdiction of the

case with respect to a proceeding conducted under this subchapter, other than a

criminal proceeding involving an offense under Section 841.085, or to a civil

commitment proceeding conducted under Subchapters F and G.”).

Welsh has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. The

petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 18, 2018 Opinion Delivered April 19, 2018

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