                                        In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               _________________
                                NO. 09-12-00410-CV
                               _________________


              IN RE COMMITMENT OF MARK PETERSIMES


________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 02-05-03239 CV
________________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In an appeal from an order entered in a sexually-violent-predator proceeding

modifying the terms of a commitment order, changing the entity that approves

where Mark Petersimes must reside, we questioned our appellate jurisdiction over

such order. Upon consideration of the statute and the responses of the parties, we

conclude that the trial court’s order is not appealable, and we also conclude that

mandamus relief on the issues Petersimes raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


                                           1
      Recently, in In re Commitment of Cortez, we addressed the same issues as

are set forth in Petersimes’s brief and concluded that we did not have appellate

jurisdiction over these same issues. No. 09-12-00385-CV, 2013 WL 3270613, at

*2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.). We also considered whether

Cortez raised issues entitling him to mandamus relief. See id. at **2-6.

      For the same reasons stated in Cortez, we conclude that we lack appellate

jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order dated July 26, 2012, and that

Petersimes has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we dismiss Petersimes’s appeal.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.



                                               ___________________________
                                                   CHARLES KREGER
                                                         Justice

Submitted on July 10, 2013
Opinion Delivered August 15, 2013

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.




                                         2
