 
 




                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________
                               NO. 09-18-00126-CV
                              _________________


                        IN RE LONNIE KADE WELSH

________________________________________________________________________

                              Original Proceeding
              435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 15-01-00659-CV
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a mandamus petition, Lonnie Kade Welsh raises two unrelated complaints.

First, he complains that the trial court failed to grant his January 30, 2017, request

for an order regarding the handling of his communications with his appellate counsel

by the Texas Civil Commitment Office. This complaint appears to concern a pro se

filing made in a case in which Welsh is represented by counsel. See generally In re

Commitment of Welsh, No. 09-15-00498-CV, 2016 WL 4483165, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont Aug. 25, 2016, pet. denied). A trial court is free to disregard any pro se

motions presented by a party represented by counsel. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d

                                          1
 
 
 




919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); see also In re Commitment of Adams, 408 S.W.3d

906, 909 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.).

      Second, Welsh argues that as a result of changes to Chapter 841 effective after

the date of his commitment, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to conduct a biennial

review of his civil commitment. The 2015 amendments to Chapter 841 left

unchanged section 841.082(d), which provides that the committing court retains

jurisdiction of the biennial review of the case. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.

§ 841.082(d) (West Supp. 2017) (“The committing court retains jurisdiction of the

case with respect to a proceeding conducted under this subchapter, other than a

criminal proceeding involving an offense under Section 841.085, or to a civil

commitment proceeding conducted under Subchapters F and G.”).

      Welsh has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. The

petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

      PETITION DENIED.



                                                          PER CURIAM


Submitted on April 18, 2018
Opinion Delivered April 19, 2018

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

                                         2
 
