Thomas Ray Pilgrim v. Texas Civil Commitment Office, 03-17-00801-CV

Background

Thomas Ray Pilgrim was adjudicated a sexually violent predator (SVP) in the 435th District Court in October 2014 and originally placed in outpatient supervision; after legislation (SB 746) he was moved into the new inpatient/tiered program and confined at the Texas Civil Commitment Center (TCCC).
Pilgrim filed an "Unauthorized Petition for Release" and, later, a Petition for Less Restrictive Housing and Supervision in Travis County (filed Feb 28, 2017).
The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) moved to transfer venue and then filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction; the trial court granted the Plea and dismissed Pilgrim’s petition.
Pilgrim’s appellate brief argues the trial court erred: he contends Chapter 841 does not vest exclusive or original jurisdiction over post‑commitment proceedings in any court other than district courts generally, that SB 746 effectively removed Montgomery County’s (435th) specialty jurisdiction as of June 17, 2015, and that SB 1576 (2017) is prospective and did not retroactively grant exclusive continuing jurisdiction to the committing court for judgments entered before Sept. 1, 2017.
The brief emphasizes legislative history (including reform motivated by misconduct findings against the 435th’s judge) and statutory ambiguity about where post‑commitment proceedings (e.g., petitions for less restrictive housing) must be filed, arguing Travis County district courts have subject‑matter jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pilgrim)	Defendant's Argument (TCCO)	Held (trial court)
1. Do Travis County district courts have subject‑matter jurisdiction over §841.0834 petitions?	Chapter 841 never confers exclusive jurisdiction on any court other than district courts generally; because Legislature did not designate a single forum for pre‑Sept. 1, 2017 commitments, Travis district courts have jurisdiction.	Post‑SB 746 and SB 1576, the committing court (court that entered the judgment) retains continuing jurisdiction over Chapter 841 matters.	Trial court held it lacked jurisdiction and granted TCCO’s Plea to the Jurisdiction (dismissal).
2. Did SB 746 (2015) strip the 435th District Court of jurisdiction over cases like Pilgrim’s?	Yes; §40 of SB 746 divested Montgomery County/435th of jurisdiction for cases not pending on June 17, 2015; Legislature clearly intended to remove the 435th’s specialty role.	SB 746 did not eliminate committing‑court jurisdiction over post‑commitment matters; the committing court still retains certain continuing authority.	Trial court treated committing court retention as prevailing; it ruled against Pilgrim on jurisdiction.
3. Did SB 1576 (2017) retroactively confer exclusive continuing jurisdiction on the committing court for pre‑Sept. 1, 2017 judgments?	No; SB 1576 is prospective (effective Sept. 1, 2017) and contains no retroactivity language; therefore it did not strip other courts of jurisdiction over petitions filed before that date.	TCCO argues the amended language referencing the "committing court" confirms continuing jurisdiction in the committing court.	Trial court applied committing‑court concept and dismissed Pilgrim’s petition for lack of jurisdiction; it did not treat SB 1576 as inapplicable retroactively.
4. Is the "committing court" the convicting court (county of conviction) or must the trial court modify the commitment order before granting less‑restrictive housing?	"Committing court" means the court that entered the judgment/order of commitment (not merely the county of conviction). Also, court modification of the commitment order is not a prerequisite to TCCO providing less‑restrictive housing under §841.0834.	TCCO contends committing court retains authority and procedures for modification/placement are matters for that court.	Trial court treated committing‑court jurisdiction as determinative and dismissed; it did not resolve Pilgrim’s argument that no modification is needed.

Key Cases Cited

Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction and jurisdictional pleading)
Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. IT‑Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (de novo review of jurisdictional questions)
In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2005) (background on SVP civil‑commitment statutory scheme)
Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011) (statutory construction principles)
In re Smith, 333 S.W.3d 582 (Tex. 2011) (statutory interpretation; when to consult extratextual aids)
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (presumption courts enforce statutes as written)
In re Commitment of Lewis, 495 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2016) (discussing judicial‑conduct history and SVP proceedings)