DENY; and Opinion Filed December 11, 2017. 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00364-CV 

IN RE JOEL CHRISTOPHER BARTON, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 219-50662-07 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Myers, and Boatright 

Opinion by Justice Boatright 

In this original proceeding, relator Joel Christopher Barton seeks review of an order finding 

Barton in criminal contempt for violations of a divorce decree and order in a suit affecting the 

parent-child relationship. We deny the petition as moot because we find the parties have entered 

an enforceable Rule 11 agreement that provides Barton with the relief requested in this proceeding 

and resolves the issues raised. 

The trial court’s contempt order found Barton in criminal contempt for seventy-five 

violations of an amended order, including failure to pay $5,286.74 in medical expenses, failure to 

pay $1,346.23 in cell phones charges, violating the possession order by failing to provide proper 

travel notice and information, and failing to provide change of address and change of employment 

information. The trial court ordered Barton to pay $37,500 in fines, sentenced Barton to 179 days 

incarceration per violation to be served concurrently, suspended commitment, and placed Barton 

on community supervision. In this original proceeding, Barton contends the contempt order is void 
 –2– 

and should be vacated. He asks this Court to grant the petition for writ of mandamus and issue a 

writ directing the trial court to vacate the contempt order. 

After Barton filed this proceeding, the parties agreed to settle the case. An agreement to 

settle a case is enforceable by the trial court if it complies with Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995). ). To comply with Rule 11, the 

agreement must be either: (1) in writing, signed, and filed with the papers as part of the record; or 

(2) made in open court and entered of record. TEX. R. CIV. P. 11. The parties read their agreement 

into the record before an associate judge and attested under oath that they agreed to the matters set 

out in the record. A valid Rule 11 agreement must contain all essential terms of the agreement and 

must be complete in every material detail. Padilla, 907 S.W.2d at 460. The parties agreed to make 

the criminal contempt orders and punishments void, and Barton agreed to pay the disputed 

expenses. The parties’ agreement, therefore, constitutes a valid and enforceable Rule 11 

agreement. 

The agreement renders this proceeding moot because the agreement addresses and resolves 

the complaints Barton raises here and provides him the relief he requests from this Court. Although 

the trial court has not rendered a judgment vacating the contempt order, it has no authority to 

render judgment which does not fall strictly within the terms of the agreement dictated into the 

record by the parties themselves. Stadil v. Stadil, No. 05-93-00303-CV, 1994 WL 469321, at *2 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 31, 1994, no writ). The agreement states that the parties have agreed to 

deem the contempt order void, and the trial court has a ministerial duty to strictly enforce that 

agreement. 
 –3– 

Accordingly, we deny the petition as moot in light of the parties’ valid and enforceable 

Rule 11 agreement. 

170364F.P05 

/Jason Boatright/ 

JASON BOATRIGHT 

JUSTICE