in Re Gerald B. Wilson, 09-22-00076-CV

Gerald B. Wilson is civilly committed as a sexually violent offender and sought a writ of mandamus after the trial court handled his biennial review without his personal participation.
Wilson contended the trial court violated his right to self-representation under Tex. Const. art. 1, § 10 and his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by effectively denying his ability to represent himself and by not holding an evidentiary hearing.
The State responded that the trial court signed a biennial review order on April 29, 2021, that the governing statute does not always require a hearing, and Wilson was not entitled to be personally present when the order was signed.
Texas Health & Safety Code § 841.102 mandates a biennial review and an order or a hearing; it entitles the committed person to counsel but expressly states the person is not entitled to be present at the review.
A hearing is required only if the court decides a commitment requirement should be modified or probable cause exists that the person’s behavioral abnormality changed such that they are no longer likely to commit predatory sexual violence.
The Court of Appeals concluded Wilson failed to show a statutory or due-process right to physical presence or self-representation at the bench review and denied mandamus relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Tex. Const. art. 1, § 10 (self-representation)	Wilson: Article 1, § 10 guarantees right to be heard by himself in the biennial review.	State: Article 1, § 10 applies only to criminal prosecutions, not civil commitment reviews.	Court: Article 1, § 10 applies only to criminal prosecutions; not a basis here.
Procedural due process — right to be physically present/represent self at biennial review	Wilson: Due process requires his physical presence to effectively represent himself during the review.	State: Due process satisfied; statute provides counsel and review process without guaranteeing personal presence.	Court: Applying Mathews balancing, Wilson did not show the statutory process deprived him of meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Statutory requirement for hearing or presence under § 841.102	Wilson: Section 841.102 requires the court to conduct review in a manner that allows him to be present/represent himself.	State: § 841.102 requires an order or a hearing; person is entitled to counsel but not to be present; hearing only if predicate findings made.	Court: § 841.102 does not require physical presence of counsel or pro se representation for the court to rule; hearing required only upon specified findings.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due-process balancing test; opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)
In re J.B., 605 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020) (Article 1, § 10 does not compel personal appearance in civil-commitment contexts)
In re State, 556 S.W.3d 821 (Tex. 2018) (committed person entitled to counsel at biennial review; hearing only if court makes predicate findings)