COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-040-CV

IN RE 

RAYMOND GLENN HANCOCK	RELATOR

	------------

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Relator has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from the Tarrant County Jail.  On January 20, 2006, pursuant to an verbal order of contempt and a written order of commitment, the trial court confined relator to the Tarrant County Jail for criminal and civil constructive contempt2 as a result of his violation of ten provisions set forth in two temporary orders issued by the trial court in this divorce and suit affecting the parent-child relationship.3  See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.506 (Vernon 1998) (providing that trial court may punish violation of temporary order issued during pendency of divorce proceeding by contempt).  On February 3, 2006, this court ordered relator released on a $1,000 bond pending the outcome of this original proceeding.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b)(3).  According to the parties, the trial court still had not signed a written order of contempt at that time.

	To punish a person for constructive contempt, due process requires both (1) a written judgment of contempt and (2) a written order of commitment.  See Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding); In re Markowitz, 25 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding).  A written contempt order must clearly state in what respect the trial court’s order has been violated.  Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Tex. 1980) (orig. proceeding).4  When either the written order of commitment or the judgment of contempt on which it is based are not available for the trial court’s signature at the time of the hearing, the court must sign them without undue delay, within a “short and reasonable time” following the verbal order.  Ex parte Amaya, 748 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Tex. 1988) (orig. proceeding); In re Brown, 114 S.W.3d 7, 9 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding).  Even if the trial court issues a written commitment order within a reasonable time after a person is detained under a verbal contempt order, due process requires the trial court to also issue a written contempt order within a reasonable time after the detention.  Barnett, 600 S.W.2d at 253-54, 256; Markowitz, 25 S.W.3d at 3.  A writ of habeas corpus will issue if the trial court’s contempt order is void because the relator has not been afforded due process.  In re Henry, 154 S.W.3d 594, 596 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding).

	In Ex parte Morgan, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a four-day delay between the relator’s confinement under a written commitment order and the signing of a contempt judgment violated the relator’s due process rights.  886 S.W.2d 829, 831-32 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, orig. proceeding); see Littleton, 97 S.W.3d at 842 n.1.  And in Markowitz, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that a seven-day delay between the signing of a written commitment order and a written contempt judgment was not short and reasonable.  25 S.W.3d at 4-5.

	Here, when relator filed this original proceeding on February 3, 2006, the trial court still had not signed a written contempt order two weeks after relator’s incarceration.  Further, our review of the record filed by both relator and real party in interest reveals that no contempt order has ever been signed; the trial court signed only a bare commitment order.5  Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not sign a written contempt order within a reasonable time after relator’s incarceration.  See, e.g., id.

	We grant the relief requested in relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and order that relator be released from bond and discharged from custody.6

	 							PER CURIAM

PANEL B:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 6, 2006