                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           _______________________

                              NO. 09-18-00428-CV
                           _______________________

                        IN RE CLARENCE D. BROWN

________________________________________________________________________

                              Original Proceeding
              435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 10-03-02609-CV
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

       In a mandamus petition, Clarence D. Brown, asks this Court to compel the

trial court to either release Brown from civil commitment or order outpatient

treatment. Brown has been subject to civil commitment as a sexually violent predator

since 2010. According to Brown, a psychological or psychiatric examination was

conducted on July 28, 2017, as part of a biennial review. On February 16, 2018, the

trial court signed a Biennial Review Order wherein the trial court concluded that

Brown should remain civilly committed without modification. See generally Tex.

Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.101-.102 (West 2017). Brown argues the trial

court’s order is void and he is entitled to immediate release from civil commitment
                                         1
due to irregularities that Brown claims occurred in previous biennial reviews.

Additionally, he argues he is currently subjected to unauthorized “inpatient”

commitment.

      After reviewing the mandamus petition and the documents contained in the

appendix, we conclude that Brown has not established that the trial court committed

a clear abuse of discretion. See In re Commitment of Marks, 230 S.W.3d 241, 244

(Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, no pet.) (an abuse of discretion occurs only when a

trial court’s decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to guiding

principles). Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

      PETITION DENIED.



                                                         PER CURIAM


Submitted on December 5, 2018
Opinion Delivered December 6, 2018

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




                                        2
