In re Shane Brooks, No. 03-07-00442-CR (Tex.App.- Sep. 19, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Waldrop)(DWOJ)(Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)
Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 07-263-C277, HONORABLE H. R. TOWSLEE, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Shane Brooks seeks to appeal an order holding him in contempt for his conduct as counsel during the trial of cause number 07-185-K277, State of Texas v. Seneka Deray Johnson, in the 277th District Court of Williamson County. Brooks's counsel was asked to submit a letter explaining this Court's jurisdiction to consider the appeal. There was no response to this request.
A court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review a contempt order on direct appeal. Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 587 n.3 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding) (citing Ex parte Eureste, 725 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see Tracy v. Tracy, No. 05-05-01574-CV, 2007 WL806358 at *2 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, no pet.) (citing Texas Animal Health Comm'n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 Tex. 1983). The appropriate remedy is by original writ of habeas corpus. Eureste, 725 S.W.2d at 216. This Court does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(d) (West 2004).
The appeal is dismissed.
___________________________________________
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: September 20, 2007
Do Not Publish
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. Statements contained herein are personal opinions and should not be construed as facts.
What was this guy thinking?
There are two major problems with his attempt here.
1) Orders arising from contempt proceedings are not appealable, even if a party seeks to appeal an appealable judgment that is incorporated in such an order. Galtex Property Investors, Inc. v. City of Galveston, 113 S.W.3d 922, 929 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.); Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 54 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied).
2) Was he attempting to pursue Original Habeas Corpus relief instead of a direct appeal? The 14 Courts of Appeals do not have original Habeas Corpus jurisdiction in matters arising from criminal courts. In re White, 45 S.W.3d 787,789(Tex.App.—Waco 2001, Orig. proceeding) Ex parte Hawkins, 855 S.W.2d at 588. See: Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(d) (West 2004)
The only way he could get relief at this venue would be to claim that the order entitled "Order of Contempt" was a cleverly disguised civil judgment in favor of a party other than the Sovereign. In that case, the court considers the nature and substance of the order rather than the title to determine whether or not jurisdiction has been vested.
Appellant "was asked to submit a letter explaining this Court's jurisdiction to consider the appeal.", but there was no response. In my opinion, this was the epitome of a frivolous appeal. Why wasn't he sanctioned for bringing this??? Especially given the
3rd COA's backlog:
"The six justices at the Third Court are already struggling to reduce the biggest case backlog of any of the 14 intermediate appeals courts. Law said it is taking the court so long to resolve appeals because of judicial turnover, budget cuts and the complicated administrative law cases that make up a significant part of the Austin-based court's workload."
...and perhaps frivolous contempt appeals from bar-licensed malefactors.
Post a Comment