In Re Terry Eugene Woodworth v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00357-CV
__________________

IN RE TERRY EUGENE WOODWORTH

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
9th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 19-07-09306-CV
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, Terry Eugene Woodworth

contends that the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error in

April 2021 by proceeding to trial on the State’s petition to have Woodworth

committed as a sexually violent predator and by having Woodworth appear at his

trial through use of videoconferencing technology in violation of Woodworth’s

statutory right to be physically present for the trial under the version of Health and

Safety Code section 841.061 that was in effect on the date of his trial. See Tex.

Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.061(d)(1); see also In re Commitment of Bluitt,

605 S.W.3d 199, 204 (Tex. 2020) (the right to appear at trial granted by section

1
841.061(d)(1) includes the right to appear in person); but see Thirty-Sixth Emergency

Order Regarding COVID-19 State of Disaster, 629 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2021).

We may grant mandamus relief to correct a trial court’s abuse of discretion

when an appeal provides an inadequate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827

S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “[M]andamus will not issue

when the law provides another plain, adequate, and complete remedy.” In re Tex.

Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609, 613 (Tex. 2006) (orig.

proceeding). A person may appeal following his commitment as a sexually violent

predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.146(b). In fact, Woodworth did

appeal the trial court’s final judgment and order of civil commitment. See In re

Commitment of Woodworth, No. 09-21-00176-CV, 2022 WL 17491819 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont Dec. 8, 2022, pet. denied). Woodworth seeks to challenge the final

judgment and order of commitment, but he cannot do so through mandamus even if

his appellate remedy is no longer available. See In re Robertson, No. 14-16-01013-

CV, 2017 WL 506807, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb 7, 2017, orig.

proceeding [mand. denied]).

Woodworth asks this Court to compel the trial court to reverse the final

judgment and order of civil commitment. In 2022, this Court affirmed the trial

court’s final judgment and our mandate has issued. See Woodworth, 2022 WL

2
17491819, at *5. Woodworth has not shown that he presented his current complaint

to the trial court, but if he had the trial court would be bound by our mandate in the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 51.1(b).

We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 6, 2023
Opinion Delivered December 7, 2023

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

3