IN RE: COMMITMENT OF CURTIS ADAMS (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Curtis Adams filed a notice of appeal from an order denying a motion for a change of venue. We questioned our jurisdiction and the parties filed responses.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Adams argues the order denying his motion for a change of venue disposed of all pending claims and parties. In a civil commitment case, however, the trial court retains jurisdiction while the commitment order remains in effect. See In re Commitment of Cortez, 405 S.W.3d 929, 932 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 2013, no pet.). Adams has not identified a signed order by the trial court that is appealable at this time.¹ Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Adams requests that we consider his response as a mandamus petition, but neither the form nor the substance of the response presents a valid basis for granting mandamus relief. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 52. Accordingly, the request is denied.

HOLLIS HORTON Justice