May-June 2016

Coming to a courtroom near you: sexually violent predators

Erin K. Faseler

Civil Chief of the ­Special Prosecution Unit in Walker County

Until recently, the Special Prosecution Unit in Huntsville tried all civil commitment proceedings for sexually violent predators—but not anymore. A new law sends these trials to the county where the predator was most recently convicted of a sexually violent offense. Here’s how to try one of these tricky civil cases.

Imagine that it’s 8 o’clock Monday morning. Sitting on your desk is a stack of about a hundred documents with a cover letter that reads, “Pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code §841.023(b), the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has determined that James Rubio1 suffers from a behavioral abnormality that predisposes him to commit a sexually violent offense.” The letter also says that if you wish to proceed with the case, a petition must be filed within 90 days from the day you received it.
    In silent response, you either head into the first stage of grief (denial) by shoving the papers to the side of your desk so you can prepare for that day’s docket, or you panic at the prospect of trying a civil case with (gasp!) full civil discovery on a subject you know very little about but that has heavy consequences for your community.
    Now imagine this scenario is reality—because it is. If you haven’t already received such a packet on your desk, you just might see one soon. That’s because on June 17, 2015, Governor Greg Abbott signed into law Senate Bill 746, which significantly altered the way sexually violent predator (SVP) civil commitment proceedings are initiated and pursued in Texas. Most directly impactful for Texas prosecutors is the new definition of “attorney representing the State” in an SVP civil commitment proceeding, which is now defined as “a district attorney, criminal district attorney, or county attorney with felony jurisdiction.”2 Under this new law, when the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) refers these cases for civil commitment consideration, it will send them directly to “the attorney representing the state for the county in which the person was most recently convicted of a sexually violent offense,”3 rather than exclusively to the Special Prosecution Unit (SPU)—though there is a provision that allows a local prosecutor to request legal, financial, and technical assistance for a civil commitment proceeding from the SPU.4
    In the last two months, the civil attorneys at SPU have assisted prosecutors in Harris, Tarrant, Bexar, and Guadalupe Counties with taking their first SVP cases to trial. These cases are very different from regular criminal trials, so I have written this article to lay out the basics of how to prepare such a case. Though I can’t possibly cover everything in a single article, this piece should point Texas prosecutors in the right direction. And of course everyone in the civil division at SPU is available to assist in any way possible, from answering questions via phone and email to trying one of these cases in your jurisdiction.

What is a Sexually Violent Predator?
According to the legislative findings in the SVP law, a small but extremely dangerous group of sexually violent predators have a behavioral abnormality that is not amenable to traditional mental illness treatment modalities and which makes them likely to engage in repeated predatory acts of sexual violence. Thus, civil commitment procedures for long-term supervision and treatment of sexually violent predators are necessary and in the interest of the State.5
    These legislative findings clearly direct that not every sex offender released from TDCJ is a sexually violent predator. Instead, only a narrowly tailored group of very dangerous sex offenders are appropriate for civil commitment. Additionally, to pass constitutional muster, the focus of the civil commitment of SVPs must be on treatment and supervision, not on punishment and continued consequence.6
    As the civil commitment chief at SPU, my goal has always been to seek an SVP civil commitment on the individuals who best meet the definition in the legislative findings, not on every sex offender referred. Every time I receive a new case, I evaluate whether I believe that this person is an SVP based on scientific research, expert opinions that I respect, and the experiences I’ve had with these cases. Again, not every sex offender is an SVP, and not every person in every case referred by TDCJ is automatically and necessarily an SVP. Keep in mind that while these are exclusively civil cases, the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is an SVP, and the jury verdict must be unanimous.
    A person is a sexually violent predator for the purposes of Chapter 841 of the Texas Health and Safety Code if he:
1)    is a repeat sexually violent offender; and
2)    suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.7
    While there are several ways to be classified as a “repeat sexually violent offender,” the most common is “if the person is convicted of more than one sexually violent offense and a sentence is imposed for at least one of the offenses.”8 The SVP statute defines “sexually violent offense” as a number of contact or attempted contact sexual offenses occurring in Texas, as well as sex offenses under prior state laws that contain elements substantially similar to current sexual offense laws. Sexually violent offenses can also derive from the laws of other states, federal law, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice if those crimes contain elements substantially similar to the Texas sexual offenses listed in the law.9 Possession of child pornography, indecent exposure, indecency with a child by exposure, and violations of sex offender registry laws do not qualify as sexually violent offenses in Texas.
    “Behavioral abnormality” is defined as a congenital or acquired condition that, by affecting a person’s emotional or volitional capacity, predisposes him to commit a sexually violent offense to the extent that the person becomes a menace to the health and safety of another person.10 The Texas Supreme Court has held that the definition of behavioral abnormality and the determination of whether a person suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes the person likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence is a single, unified issue that cannot be bisected.11
    While an individual’s convictions for sexually violent offenses are extremely important in proving someone is an SVP, the behavioral abnormality determination, which requires evidence that spans an individual’s entire life, will be the focus of most evidence collection and trial.

Why was the case referred?
Before the case ever reaches a prosecutor’s desk, the SVP statute provides a detailed process for referring prospective SVPs for civil commitment. (In this article, we’ll call a possible sexually violent predator on trial for civil commitment “the person” and use male pronouns for simplicity’s sake.) Twenty-four months prior to an anticipated release date, TDCJ shall give notice to the multidisciplinary team (MDT) of a person whom they believe is a “repeat sexually violent offender.” (See the timeline at right for a visual depiction of the process.)
    The MDT is established by the executive director at TDCJ and must include seven representatives from the follow disciplines:
•    a mental health professional from the Department of State Health Services;
•    two people from TDCJ, including one from victim services and one from the sex-offender rehabilitation program in the rehabilitation programs division;
•    a licensed peace officer employed by the Department of Public Safety and who has at least five years’ experience working for that department;
•    two people from the Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO); and
•    a licensed sex offender treatment provider from the Council on Sex Offender Treatment.12
    Within 60 days of receiving notice from TDCJ, the MDT must:
1)    determine whether the person is a repeat sexually violent offender and whether the person is likely to commit a sexually violent offense after release,
2)    give notice of that determination to TDCJ, and
3)    recommend the person for a behavioral abnormality evaluation.13
    The MDT typically meets once a month over a two-day period where they evaluate about 80 cases for civil commitment consideration.
    Within 60 days of the MDT’s recommendation for a behavioral abnormality assessment, TDCJ shall assess whether the person suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. To aid in this assessment, TDCJ shall use an expert to examine the person and make a clinical assessment based on testing for psychopathy, a clinical interview, and other assessments and techniques as appropriate.14
    If, as a result of this psychological assessment, TDCJ believes the person does in fact suffer from a behavioral abnormality, the case shall be referred to the attorney representing the State in the county in which the person was most recently convicted of a sexually violent offense.15 This is where your job starts. On average, about 75 cases are referred from TDCJ for civil commitment consideration each year. Depending on a number of factors, including complexity, number of expert witnesses, and number of depositions, each of these cases costs approximately $10,000 to $45,000. (The local commissioner’s court will want to know that!)
    Once the local prosecutor receives the referral file from TDCJ, she may file a petition in the court of conviction for the person’s most recent sexually violent offense stating facts sufficient to support the allegation that the person is a sexually violent predator.16 Typically, this will include a statement that he is a repeat sexually violent offender with supporting facts specific to the sexually violent offenses and a statement that he suffers from a behavioral abnormality.
    On a prosecutor’s request, the SPU shall provide legal, financial, and technical assistance to that attorney for a civil commitment proceeding under the SVP law.17 The State Counsel for Offenders (SCFO) shall represent an indigent person subject to a civil commitment proceeding.18 Because these individuals are incarcerated when their cases are referred, most will be indigent and will be represented by the civil division of SCFO located in Montgomery County (Conroe).
    If local prosecutors decide to pursue the person’s civil commitment, the petition must be filed within 90 days of the date the person is referred to the prosecutor and served on the person as soon as practicable after the petition is filed.19 The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (TRCP) more specifically detail petition and service of citation requirements. In my original petition, I always include my requests for disclosure pursuant to TRCP 194.2.

Moving through the civil discovery process
Once the petition is filed, prosecutors should work with the defense and the court to get a docket control order that lays out all of the discovery deadlines, deadlines for dispositive motions, and the trial date. The discovery process begins once the petition is filed and continues until 30 days prior to the trial date. The trial shall be conducted within 270 days of when the person is served with the petition and no later than the person’s sentence discharge date.20
    Almost all of these cases will reach trial. There is nothing to plea bargain. The person may enter into an agreed judgment, which would declare him an SVP and require treatment and supervision, or the person may bring the case to trial. Because the focus of civil commitment is rehabilitation, there is no set length of time that the person may be in civil commitment. SVPs are to remain civilly committed until their behavioral abnormalities change to the extent they are no longer likely to commit a predatory act of sexual violence.
    From the moment the petition is filed, my job is to provide my expert with as much data from as many sources as possible to support a finding that the person has a behavioral abnormality. Because these are civil cases, both parties—the person and the State—are required to comply with all aspects of civil discovery. I have collected records from law enforcement agencies, TDCJ, local agencies in the individual’s prior counties of residence, military, out-of-state sources, CPS, and any other place that may come up in a particular case. The best way to gather this type of information is through subpoenas to non-parties,21 requests for production and inspection to the opposing party,22 and interrogator-ies.23
    Both parties are entitled to a jury trial on demand, and both are entitled to an immediate examination of the person by an expert.24 The person is entitled to retain and receive compensation upon the court’s approval for his expert, but not all cases have defense experts.25 If the defense has an expert, that expert will offer the opinion that the person does not have a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. Additional rights the person has include the right to appear at trial, cross-examine witnesses, and present evidence on his behalf at trial.26 Because these are civil cases, the person is required to participate in and respond to all of the State’s civil discovery requests.
    In these cases, sexual and non-sexual criminal convictions, charges, and even mere allegations are crucial to proving the person has a behavioral abnormality. Perhaps the most useful part of Chapter 841 for that purpose is §841.142, which requires any entity with relevant information relating to the person to release that information to an entity charged with making an assessment or determination of a potential SVP. The prior bad acts uncovered through this discovery are vital to meeting the State’s burden in these cases.
    Requests for Admissions27 are useful for eliminating facts for which there is no real controversy. Once offered into evidence at trial, the person cannot contradict a fact he has already admitted in a response to requests for admissions. Often, these are an additional way to prove that the person is a repeat sexually violent offender because the person will admit that he was (or is) incarcerated for sexually violent offenses.
    For instance, from the thousands of pages of documents I collected through record collection and discovery for the James Rubio case, I learned that his issues with controlling his sexually assaultive behavior began while stationed in Georgia as a United States Marine in the late 1970s. Those documents included details about:
•    a sexual assault from 1977 that was later dismissed;
•    a five-year term of confinement in the Georgia State Penitentiary in 1978 after a jury convicted him of Aggravated Assault with Intent to Commit Rape involving a fellow Marine’s wife;  
•    another allegation of rape in 1978 (while he was out on bond for the allegation above) that was ultimately dismissed due to insufficient evidence;
•    a second conviction in Georgia for Aggravated Assault with Intent to Commit Rape for an incident in 1979, for which he served five years in custody and on probation pursuant to a plea bargain;
•    a conviction in Bexar County (where he was then living) for the 1982 home invasion and rape of a woman who rebuffed his romantic advances, for which he was sentenced in 1983 to 20 years in TDCJ;
•    within a few months of being released on mandatory supervision in 1990, he was charged in Bexar County with the Aggravated Sexual Assault of his 13-year-old stepdaughter, to which he eventually pled nolo contendre in 1992 and received another 20-year TDCJ sentence; and
•    he also had a history of arrests for assaults and terroristic threats against women and law enforcement officers.
    The person, witnesses, and experts are subject to oral depositions28 and/or depositions upon written questions.29 The oral deposition of the person, which is usually conducted just a few months prior to trial, is really where prosecutors can gather evidence to show that he suffers from the behavioral abnormality.
    With every deposition of the person, many of the questions are to establish or provide the basic risk factors associated with sexual recidivism, sexual deviance, potential personality disorders, and mental health issues. I ask about his childhood and adolescence, his current relationships with family and friends, physical or sexual abuse he may have endured, and employment and relationship histories. I also ask about his non-criminal history, mental health history, prison adjustment, vocational history, and educational backgrounds. If he is in a TDCJ sex offender program, I question him on what he has learned and how he applies it to himself.
    After a thorough history is established, I ask about his sexual history, including past and present sexual fantasies, masturbatory habits, partners, and fetishes. The most important line of questioning relates to his versions and insight into his sex-offending history. Does he deny the offenses, or does he recognize his fault? Does he understand that he is at risk of sexual re-offense, or does he believe he is at zero risk? Is he going to follow the law in the future, or does he believe he is above the law?

Proving Element One: Sexually Violent Predator
Based on his sexual offending history, Rubio easily met the criteria for being a repeat sexually violent offender. In the petition, I supported my allegation with the 1983 rape (a sexual offense under prior state law that is substantially similar to a sexually violent offense under current state law for which he was sentenced) and the 1992 aggravated sexual assault (a sexually violent offense for which he was sentenced).
    After a quick subpoena to TDCJ for his penitentiary packets and after I received certified judgments and sentences from the district clerk’s office, proving that Rubio is a repeat sexually violent offender was done. While Rubio’s conviction history made it easy to prove the first element, in other cases I have had to use military judgments, out-of-state convictions, juvenile adjudications, and murder convictions (when the murder was committed with the intent to commit a sexually violent offense) to prove that someone is a repeat sexually violent offender.
    James Rubio admitted to each of his convictions and sentences for the sexually violent offenses, as well as arrests for more sexual offenses for which he was never convicted. He admitted to details of a prison disciplinary action for attempting to establish an inappropriate relationship with a TDCJ staff member. Rubio also admitted to knowing it was wrong to sexually offend but committing the acts anyway.
    The first evidence I presented at Rubio’s trial were these admission statements, which I read to the jury. Because he was not able to present controverting evidence to these admission statements, once his penitentiary packets were admitted into evidence, I had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that James Rubio was a repeat sexually violent offender.

Proving Element Two: Behavioral Abnormality
The rest of my work on the James Rubio case focused on proving that he had a behavioral abnormality that made him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. The behavioral abnormality cannot be proven simply with the sexually violent offense convictions. While those offenses are important and indicate certain risk factors, prosecutors must prove to the jury that the person, as he sits in the courtroom on the day of trial, has a condition that in some way affects his ability to control his sexual behavior to the extent that he may harm another person. This requires an examination of the person’s entire life up to the moment the jury deliberates.
    The last time James Rubio committed a sexually violent offense that I knew about was the 1990 sexual assault of his 13-year-old stepdaughter. My trial was scheduled for 21 years later. That meant I had to build a convincing case that his sexual deviancy began in the late ’70s and did not remit simply because he went to prison. I had to make the jury understand that the James Rubio who committed sex offenses in 1977, 1978 (twice), 1979, 1982, and 1990 was the same James Rubio who sat in front of them in 2011.
    The referral from TDCJ came with a behavioral abnormality assessment report written by Dr. Antoinette McGarrahan, a forensic psychologist from Dallas, who opined that James Rubio indeed has a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. I had a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Lisa Clayton, evaluate Rubio, too. Dr. Clayton also opined that James Rubio has a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. Because Rubio’s psychopathy and manipulation was such a large part of his sexual offending history, I thought it was really important to highlight this through the scored instrument from the psychologist and also through the psychiatrist’s personal interaction with him. Obviously, two forensic experts on one of these cases costs a lot more than one, but in some cases, such as Rubio’s, the increased cost is necessary. (In hindsight, I probably could have gone forward with just one expert, but I choose to designate Drs. McGarrahan and Clayton as retained testifying experts according to the deadline set forth in the docket control order.)  
    James Rubio, while evaluated by his own expert, did not retain an expert for testimony at trial. Again, because these are strictly civil cases, the right to remain silent does not apply. The person must meet with and participate in the evaluation conducted by the State’s expert.30 If he fails to actively participate, the statute lists severe consequences, which include not being allowed to present a defense expert and being held in contempt.31
    It was through deposition that I truly learned the most about James Rubio. Both doctors conveyed to me that they believed he was a psychopath suffering from adult antisocial behavior and a paraphilic attraction to non-consensual partners. Dr. Clayton further diagnosed him with sexual sadism and hebephilia (sexual attraction to adolescents). Even though I had conversations about their opinions, it wasn’t until I sat across the table from Rubio himself for his deposition that I truly understood who James Rubio was and how I needed to communicate that to my jury. During the deposition, he presented himself as a valiant Marine who never raped anyone, who was completely honest with his dutiful wife (No. 6 by the time I met him), who was well-connected with law enforcement in Bexar County (he had the business card of the police chief at the time), and who was well-respected by the wardens and officers in prison.
    Once I had deposed Rubio, I set about debunking his claims. Through discovery, I had deposed his latest wife, who knew very little of his sexual offending history. I had gone to San Antonio to obtain affidavits from police officers Rubio said he knew, but who had never met with or spoken to him or his wife. I received a letter from the warden at his current TDCJ unit documenting physical threats from both Rubio and his wife. I uncovered TDCJ disciplinaries where his wife was operating an unauthorized business through him within the prison system. I learned that a unit transfer was necessitated because he was repeatedly threatening guards with physical assault. In his parole file, he had letters from his prior wives protesting his release, as well as letters Rubio wrote to parole board members mocking their decisions.
    After receiving all of this newly collected information, Dr. McGarrahan felt the need to re-score the psychopathy instrument. Psychopathy relates to sexual recidivism in a very common-sense sort of way. The less a person cares about the physical and emotional well-being of other people, the more likely he is to cause them harm. James Rubio’s new score on the psychopathy checklist had increased, which indicated that when he first met with Dr. McGarrahan, he was able to effectively conceal some of these traits. Not only did my deposition of Rubio help solidify my case that he was a sexually violent predator, but it also strengthened and further supported my doctors’ opinions. Together, the experts and I could provide the jury with specific and recent examples of the lies, manipulation, and deceit he chose to spew while facing this case.

Trial began in September 2011. Through the documents I had collected and his deposition, Rubio’s lies were debunked at trial and used to show that the man sitting in the 435th District Court was the exact same manipulative and sexually deviant man who entered prison 20 years earlier. The State’s case included testimony from a fingerprint expert to admit the penitentiary packets into evidence, Drs. McGarrahan and Clayton to support their behavioral abnormality opinions, and James Rubio himself. (In a civil case, adverse parties can be called to testify, so he was required to take the stand and answer my questions in front of the jury.)
    Rubio wanted me and the jury to believe that his wife would provide intense supervision and that the Veterans Affairs Office in San Antonio would give him sex-offender treatment upon his release. (To counter this claim, I had requested and miraculously received—on the last day of trial—a letter from the San Antonio Veterans Administration stating that the agency does not provide sex offender-specific therapy.) He also had detailed plans about the tow-truck company he was going to run once he discharged his sentence. I was able to admit into evidence everything I had learned about Rubio’s lies and violent tendencies, and why a tow-truck company is the last business venture a man with his history should be operating. Everything he said at trial was used to show just how little insight he had about his current risk for sexual re-offense and how severe his sexual deviance was as he sat in that courtroom. It all showed that he was clearly a liar, that he was manipulative, and that neither prison nor time had changed him. And, given the opportunity, his entitlement and lack of insight would lead him to commit a new sexually violent offense. All of these things indicated that at the time of trial, Rubio suffered from a condition that affected his ability to control his behavior such that he was predisposed to commit a predatory act of sexual violence. I had made my case.
    The defense focused on the fact that Rubio had not raped anyone in prison over the last 20 years. They pointed to his precisely laid-out employment plans as evidence that he had changed and wanted to live a better life. Rubio wanted the jury to focus on his 1974 United States Marine Corp photo and ignore the six accusations, charges, and convictions of sexual assault. He wanted the jury to focus on his lies, not the liar who sat in the courtroom. Rubio, his wife, and a friend testified on his behalf. He did not have an expert, but about half of these cases do have a defense expert.
    After two days of trial and an hour of deliberation, a jury decided that James Rubio is a sexually violent predator and civilly committed him to supervision and outpatient treatment. As of this writing, Rubio is currently incarcerated in TDCJ for failing to register as a sex offender after removing his GPS ankle monitor and fleeing from the halfway house where he was required to live as part of his civil commitment. He was facing a third-degree felony for violating the terms of civil commitment.32 (These days, all sexually violent predators civilly committed under this law reside in the Texas Civil Commitment Center in Littlefield unless they have been approved to live elsewhere.) His projected discharge date is January 7, 2023. Whenever he ultimately is released from TDCJ, he will immediately transfer back to civil commitment for treatment and supervision.     

Biennial review and release
After a person is civilly committed as an SVP, he is statutorily required to receive a biennial examination by a psychologist or psychiatrist paid for and submitted to the court by the Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO).33 As part of the biennial review, a report must include consideration of whether a modification of a civil commitment requirement should be made and whether the person should be released from all requirements imposed on him.34
    At the biennial review, the person is entitled to be represented by counsel but is not entitled to be present at the review, as it is to be conducted by submission.35 Based on the documentation submitted, the judge can either continue civil commitment or set a hearing on the biennial review, but only if a modification of the civil commitment order is requested by TCCO or probable cause is found to believe that the behavioral abnormality has changed to the extent that the person is no longer likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.36 If a hearing is set, the attorney representing the State must conduct a new jury trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the behavioral abnormality continues to exist and has not sufficiently changed.37
    The person may at any time file an unauthorized petition for release.38 The TCCO shall authorize the person to file a petition for release if that office determines that the committed person’s behavioral abnormality has changed to the extent that the person is no longer likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.39 A hearing set as a result of an authorized petition for release is conducted in front of a jury and requires the State to prove to a jury that the person’s behavioral abnormality continues to exist and has not sufficiently changed.40

The civil commitment of sexually violent repeat offenders protects our communities while providing treatment and rehabilitation to a very dangerous population of sex offenders in our state. While these cases can be time-consuming, laborious, and emotionally gut-wrenching, knowing that one fewer sexually violent predator is in our communities makes the process worthwhile. My hope is that the next time one of these cases lands on your desk, you have a good understanding of the process so that you may civilly commit a person you believe to be a sexually violent predator. If you need further assistance in an SVP civil commitment proceeding, remember that prosecutors may request legal, financial, and technical assistance from the SPU.41 We are always willing and ready to help.

Timeline for an SVP’s civil ­commitment trial

24 months before an inmate’s anticipated release date:  TDCJ gives notice to the multidisciplinary team (MDT) that an inmate may be a repeat sexually violent offender.

Within 60 days of receiving notice from TDCJ:  The MDT must determine whether the person is a repeat sexually violent offender likely to commit a sexually violent offense after release, give notice of that determination to TDCJ, and recommend the person for a behavioral abnormality evaluation.

Within 60 days of the MDT’s recommendation for a behavior abnormality ­assessment:  TDCJ must assess the inmate. If TDCJ finds that he has this abnormality, the case is referred to the prosecutor in the county in which the inmate was most recently convicted of a sexually violent offense.

Within 90 days of the case’s referral to the local ­prosecutor:  If the prosecutor decides to pursue civil commitment, she must file a petition stating facts sufficient to support the allegation that the inmate is a sexually violent predator; the petition must be served on the inmate as soon as practicable after the petition is filed. The petition should also include the State’s requests for disclosure.

Once a trial date is set and the court establishes a ­docket control order laying out all deadlines:  The discovery process begins. It ­continues until 30 days prior to the trial date.

Within 270 days of the State’s serving the inmate with the petition (and no ­later than his sentence ­discharge date):  The trial must be conducted.


1 For use as a case study, I have included the story of my 2011 civil commitment trial of James Rubio.
2 Tex. Health & Safety Code §841.002(1).
3 Id. at §841.023(b).
4 Id. at §841.042.
5 Id. at §841.001.
6 In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. May 2005); Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002).
7 Tex. Health & Safety Code at §841.003(a).
8 Id. at §841.003(b).
9 Id. at §841.002(8).
10 Id. at §841.002(2).
11 In re Commitment of Bohannan, 388 S.W.3d 296, 302-03 (Tex. August 12, 2012).
12 Tex. Health & Safety Code §841.022(a).
13 Id. at §841.022(c).
14 Id. at §841.023(a).
15 Id. at §841.023(b).
16 Id. at 841.041(a).
17 Id. at §841.042.
18 Id. at §841.005(a).
19 Id. at §841.041(a) and (b).
20 Id. at §841.061(a)(1) and (2).
21 Tex. Rule of Civil Proc. 176.
22 Tex. Rule of Civil Proc. 196.
23 Tex. Rule of Civil Proc. 197.
24 Tex. Health & Safety Code at §841.061(b).
25 Id. at §841.145.
26 Id. at §841.061(d).
27 Tex. Rule of Civil Proc. 198.
28 Tex. Rule of Civil Proc. 199.
29 Tex. Rule of Civil Proc. 200.
30 Tex. Health & Safety Code §841.061(f).
31 Id. at §841.061(f)(1)-(3).
32 Id. at §841.085(a) and (b).
33 Id. at §841.101(a).
34 Id. at §841.101(b).
35 Id. at §841.102(b).
36 Id. at §841.102(c)(1) and (2).
37 Id. at §841.103.
38 Id. at §§841.122 and 841.123.
39 Id. at §841.121(a).
40 Id. at §841.121(e).
41 Id. at §841.042.