In re Wilson

IN RE GERALD B. WILSON

No. 09-22-00076-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

April 7, 2022

Submitted on March 14, 2022

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

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On a petition for a writ of mandamus, Gerald B. Wilson complains that the trial court violated Article 1, § 10 of the Texas Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by effectively denying Wilson the right to represent himself in the biennial review of his civil commitment as a sexually violent offender and by failing to conduct the statutorily required review. He asks this Court to compel the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. In response, the State contends the trial court signed a biennial review order on April 29, 2021, that the applicable statute does not require the trial court to set a hearing under the circumstances present here, and therefore Wilson was not entitled to be personally present when the trial court signed the biennial review order.

Article 1, § 10 of the Texas Constitution applies only to criminal prosecutions. See Tex. Const. Art. 1 § 10 ("In all criminal prosecutions the accused . . . shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both[.]"). A person subjected to an involuntary civil commitment proceeding cannot compel his personal appearance at a hearing by invoking Article 1, § 10. In re J.B., 605 S.W.3d 650, 655 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (hearing on petition for an order to administer psychoactive medications).

Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of liberty or property interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976). The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Id. at 333. Determining what process is due in a particular proceeding requires consideration of three factors: (1) the private interest affected by the proceeding or official action; (2) the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged proceeding; and (3) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest due to the procedure used. Id. at 335.

Section 841.102 of the Texas Health and Safety Code requires the trial court to "conduct a biennial review of the status of the committed person and issue an order concluding the review or setting a hearing[.]" See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.102(a). "The person is entitled to be represented by counsel at the biennial review, but the person is not entitled to be present at that review." Id. § 841.102(b). A hearing is required if the trial court determines at the biennial review that a requirement imposed on the person through the civil commitment should be modified or that probable cause exists to believe that the person's behavioral abnormality has changed to the extent that the person is no longer likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. Id. § 841.102(c).

Wilson appears to argue that he must be physically...