In the Commitment of Stephen Patrick Black v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-25-00025-CV

IN THE COMMITMENT OF Stephen Patrick BLACK

From the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-1805-CV
Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice
Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 17, 2025

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DENIED

Appellant Stephen Patrick Black appeals from the denial of his application for writ of

habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, treat the appeal as a petition for writ

of mandamus at Black’s request, and deny his mandamus petition.

BACKGROUND

Black was civilly committed in April 2016, after a jury found him to be a sexually violent

predator. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 841.081. This court affirmed the judgment and

commitment. See In re Commitment of Black, 522 S.W.3d 2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet.

denied), cert. denied sub nom. Black v. Texas, 586 U.S. 878, 139 S. Ct. 204, 202 L. Ed. 2d 140
04-25-00025-CV

(2018). Black remains civilly committed to the Texas Civil Commitment Center (“TCCC”) for

treatment and supervision.

On November 11, 2024, Black filed an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking court-

ordered removal of a GPS tracking device from his person. Black’s habeas petition alleges he had

previously been required to wear a GPS device, which he asserts was removed after he made

progress in his treatment. Black alleges that he was illegally and unconstitutionally required to

wear a GPS device again based on a polygraph test response indicating “no opinion” regarding his

possession of contraband and/or inappropriate cell phone usage. In support of his habeas

application, Black attaches only three exhibits as evidence: (1) the Texas Civil Commitment

Office’s (“TCCO”) policy for requiring GPS tracking, along with a blank GPS removal application

form; (2) an aerial photo of the TCCC; and (3) a written statement signed by Black alleging the

circumstances under which he was required to wear a GPS device again.

The trial court denied Black’s habeas application without a hearing. Black appeals, arguing

(1) the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on the merits of his habeas application;

and (2) in the alternative, he is entitled to mandamus relief.

JURISDICTION

First, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ex parte

Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 393–94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315,

317 (Tex. 2009) (“Courts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction.”) (internal

quotations omitted).

A. Applicable Law

There is no right to an appeal when a trial court refuses to issue a habeas writ or dismisses

or denies a habeas application without ruling on the merits of the applicant’s claims. See

-2-
04-25-00025-CV

Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 394; Ex parte Garcia, 683 S.W.3d 467, 471–72 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2023, no pet.) (en banc); Purchase v. State, 176 S.W.3d 406, 407 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). “Thus, where the record does not show that the trial court ruled on the

merits of the application for writ of habeas corpus, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.” Ex parte

Blunston, No. 04-12-00657-CV, 2013 WL 3874471, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 24, 2013,

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see Ex parte Bowers, 36 S.W.3d 926, 927 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2001, pet. ref’d) (holding that an appellate court “may consider the entire record”

when determining whether the trial court ruled on the merits of a habeas application and dismissing

appeal when nothing in the record showed the trial court considered the merits of the application);

Ex parte Miller, 931 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no pet.) (holding that the

appellate court lacked jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court’s denial of a habeas application

“[b]ecause the district court denied the application for writ of habeas corpus without expressly

ruling on the merits of claims for relief”). When a trial judge “denies an applicant a hearing on the

merits of his [] claims, there is no right to appeal.” Garcia, 683 S.W.3d at 471–72 (citing

Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 394).

B. Application

Here, the trial court denied Black a hearing on the merits of his habeas claim, and “the

record is devoid of any indication the trial court heard any evidence or argument” regarding

Black’s claim. Id. at 473. The trial court “expressed no opinion on the merits” of his claim. Id.; see

Purchase, 176 S.W.3d at 407. Therefore, the trial court did not rule on the merits when denying

Black’s habeas application, and we lack appellate jurisdiction to review Black’s appeal. See

Garcia, 683 S.W.3d at 473; Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 394. Black’s first issue is overruled.

-3-
04-25-00025-CV

REQUEST TO TREAT HABEAS APPEAL AS A MANDAMUS PETITION

Black requests that if we determine the trial court’s order is not appealable, we convert his

appeal to a mandamus petition and direct the trial court to consider the merits of his habeas

application or grant his requested habeas relief. When a trial court refuses to issue a writ or denies

an applicant a hearing on the merits of the habeas claims, “the applicant has two remedies: first, to

present the application to another trial judge with jurisdiction; or second, to file an application for

a writ of mandamus.” Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 394; see Garcia, 683 S.W.3d at 473; Hodge v.

Kraft, 490 S.W.3d 510, 516 n.2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.) (noting that “in certain

circumstances, we may treat an interlocutory appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus”) (citing

CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 452–53 (Tex. 2011)). We will therefore consider Black’s

appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus.

A. Mandamus Standard and Applicable Law

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear abuse of

discretion when the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235

S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if its ruling “is

so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” In re K&L Auto

Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 247 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (internal quotation marks

omitted). To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish that the trial court could

have only reasonably reached one conclusion. Id. The relator bears the burden to provide the Court

with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d

833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

The Texas Legislature expressly found that “a small but extremely dangerous group of

sexually violent predators exists and that those predators have a behavioral abnormality that is not

-4-
04-25-00025-CV

amenable to traditional mental illness treatment modalities and that makes the predators likely to

engage in repeated predatory acts of sexual violence.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 841.001.

The Texas Health and Safety Code requires that a judge ordering a person’s civil commitment

“shall impose on the person requirements necessary to ensure the person’s compliance with

treatment and supervision and to protect the community.” Id. § 841.082(a). These requirements

“shall” include:

(4) requiring the person to submit to appropriate supervision and:
(A) submit to tracking under a particular type of tracking service, if the
person:
(i) while residing at a civil commitment center, leaves the center for
any reason;
(ii) is in one of the two most restrictive tiers of treatment, as
determined by the office;
(iii) is on disciplinary status, as determined by the office; or
(iv) resides in the community[.]

Id. The statute defines “tracking service” to include GPS tracking devices. See id. § 841.002(10).

The TCCO “shall determine the conditions of supervision and treatment of a committed person.”

id. § 841.083(a).

B. Application

The Beaumont Court of Appeals recently considered a similar appeal. See In re

Commitment of Marks, No. 09-24-00277-CV, 2025 WL 2416827, at *5 (Tex. App.—Beaumont

Aug. 21, 2025, no pet.). Marks, a civilly committed person, filed a habeas application alleging the

requirement that he wear a GPS tracking device illegally and unconstitutionally restrained his

liberty. Id. at *2. The trial court denied his habeas application without ruling on the merits, so the

appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction over his appeal from that denial. Id. at *4. The appellate

court further held that Marks failed to meet his burden to provide sufficient record evidence to

-5-
04-25-00025-CV

establish his right to mandamus relief because he failed to show the trial court clearly abused its

discretion by declining to consider the merits of his habeas corpus petition. Id. at *5.

As in Marks, Black has not met his burden to provide a sufficient record to establish his

right to mandamus relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837. Beyond his own conclusory assertions,

Black provides no evidence of the circumstances under which he was allegedly required to submit

to a GPS tracking device. The record does not indicate Black’s current tier of treatment or his

disciplinary status. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 841.082(a)(4)(A). Nor did he present such

evidence to the trial court in his habeas application. Black has therefore not met his burden to show

the trial court could have only reasonably reached the conclusion that it must consider the merits

of his habeas application or that he is entitled to his requested habeas relief. See K&L Auto

Crushers, 627 S.W.3d at 247. Because Black has not presented evidence that the trial court clearly

abused its discretion, we cannot grant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief here. See Sw.

Bell Tel. Co., 235 S.W.3d at 623.

CONCLUSION

Because the trial court’s denial of Black’s habeas application was not based on the merits,

we lack jurisdiction to review his habeas appeal. We therefore dismiss his appeal for want of

jurisdiction and, at Black’s request, treat his appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. Finally, we

deny Black’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 1

Lori Massey Brissette, Justice

1
Black’s August 28, 2025 “Motion for Leave to Supplement Brief” is denied.

-6-