                                        In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               _________________
                                NO. 09-12-00391-CV
                               _________________


                 IN RE COMMITMENT OF ERICK LAWSON


________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 07-08-08159 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 Erick Lawson 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 Lawson raises is not warranted. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


                                           1
      Recently, in In re Commitment of Holt and In re Commitment of Cortez, we

addressed the same issues Lawson raises in his brief, and we concluded that we did

not have appellate jurisdiction over these same issues. In re Commitment of Holt,

No. 09-12-00406-CV, 2013 WL _______, at *___ (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 11,

2013, no pet. h.); In re Commitment of Cortez, No. 09-12-00385-CV, 2013 WL

3270613, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.).               We also

considered whether Holt and Cortez raised issues entitling them to mandamus

relief. See Holt, 2013 WL _______, at *___; Cortez, 2013 WL 3270613, at **2-6.

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

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

Lawson has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly,

we dismiss Lawson’s appeal.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.



                                                ___________________________
                                                    CHARLES KREGER
                                                          Justice

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

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.



                                          2
