## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . A P
- 75, 720

EX PA R TE LA W R EN C E E D W A R D TH O M PSO N , A ppl i c ant
O N A PPL I C A TIO N FO R A W R I T O F H A BE A S C O R PU S CAUS E N OS . 1 0 3 6 8 2 2 THROUGH 1 0 3 6 8 3 3 I N T HE 2 4 8 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT TH CO URT FROM HA RRI S CO UNTY

H ERV EY , J. , de liv e r e d t he opi nio n of t he Co ur t i n whic h K ELLER , P .J., P RI CE , W OM ACK , J OHN S ON , K EASLER , H O L C O MB and C OCH RAN , JJ., jo ine d. M E YE RS , J., not par ti c ipa ti ng . O P I N I O N Applicant see ks habea s corpus re lief fr om sentence s assessed a g ainst him in t hirteen

c r i m i n a l c o n t e mp tj u d g m e n t s e n t e r e d b y t h e 2 4 8 J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c tC o u rto f H ar r i s C o u n t y. th
The State c alled applica

nt to testify

befor e a jur

y in the criminal trial of a

nother pe rson named Patric k Enca lade. Applica nt refuse d to answer

thirteen of the fourtee n questions that the State asked him. The tr ial court e ntere d a cr iminal contempt judgment a g ainst applicant for eac h ref usal to answer

(ca use numbers 1036821 throug h 1036833). These judgme nts refle ct that the

tr ia l c ourt se nte nc e d a

pp lic ant t o thre e da

y s in the Ha rr is C ounty

ja il a nd a $5 0 f ine fo r h is f

ir stThompson–2

1 Ap p l i ca n t ’s wr i td o es n o t l i s t t h e j u d gm en t i n t h i s ca u s e n u m b er as o n e t h at h e i s ch al l en gi n g.
2 See § 2 1

. 0 02(b), T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE , (punishment for c riminal contempt “of a court other

than a jus tic e c ourt

or a mun ic ipa l c ourt

is a fi ne of no t mo re tha

n $50 0 or co nf

ine me nt in the c ounty

ja il for not more than six months, or both a fine a nd confine ment in jail”).

3 This was the only

time that the t ri al co u rt m ade a ny oral pronounc ement that applica nt’s contempt sentenc es would be “sta cked on the other.” The State sug g ests that the timing of this ora l pr on ounc e me nt w a s in a de qu a te to s ta c k a pp lic ant’ s c on te mpt

se nte nc e s. Th e State a sse rt s: At the tim e the tr ia l c ourt a c tual ly held

a pp lic ant i n c on te mpt , a sse sse d h is ref usal to answer

(ca use number 1036821) and to six months in t he Ha rris County

jail and a 1 $500 fine for

eac h of applica

nt’s other twe lve re fusals to answe r (c ause numbe rs 1036822 throug h 1036833). 2 Prior to the State calling applicant to testify befor e the jury , the trial cour t held a hea

ring outside the jury ’s pre sence on whether applicant would testify . At this hearing , applicant dismiss ed a la

wy er w ho had bee n appointed to advise a pplicant on his decision whethe r to testify

. Applicant asse rted no privileg es that would excuse him from testifying. A fter a pplicant

answe red some of

the State’s questions that would be a sked ag ain in the jury ’s pre sence , the trial court stopped the que stioning and told applica nt that he must testify

truthfully or fa ce pe rjury char g es. The tr ial court a lso informed applica nt that he would be c alled to testify befor e the jury

. Applicant told the trial cour t that he would not testify . The trial c ourt responde d that applicant

wo uld be he ld i n c on te mpt

fo r e a c h r e fu sa l to ans we r, that th e se nte nc e fo r h is f ir st r e fu sa l to

answe r would “[p]erhaps” be “thre e day s and a f ifty -dollar f

ine,” a nd that his sentence for e ach subsequent re fusal to answe r would be “ six months in t he Ha rris County

jail and a $500 f

ine.” The trial c ourt also ora lly pronounce d that these sente nces w ould eac h be “sta cked on the other.” 3Thompson–3

punishmen t a

n d /o r p r o n o u n c e d

s e n te n c e in

c o n n e c ti o nw it

h an y o f th e th ir te en ins tanc e s w he n h e re fu se d to te sti fy be fo re the jur

y (f oo tno te omi tte d) , it

did no t in an y w ay m e n t i o no r

o t h e r w i s e r e f

e r t o c u m u l a t i o no f

an y o f t h e s e n t e n c e s . It the re fo re a

pp e ars that no ne of

a pp lic ant ’s con te mpt

se nte nc e s w e re a c tua lly c umu la te d s inc e the tr ia l c ourt fa ile d to make any sp e c if ic or de r to t

hat e ff e c t at the time it pronounced any

of applicant’s sentence

s . (Citation omit ted). (Emphasis in orig inal).
T h e r ec o rd al s o re fl ec t s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’s j u d gm en t s i nca u s e n u mb er s 1 0 3 6 8 2 1 t h ro u gh 1036833 contain no cumulation orde rs. Ther efor e, assuming that ap p l i ca n t’s contempt sentenc es are valid, it is arg uable that these sentenc es should run conc urre ntly with eac h other a

n d wi t h any o t her se ntence that applicant is cur rently serving

. See E

x parte He rnandez , 7 5 8 S. W. 2 d 594, 596 (T e x.Cr .App . 1 98 8) (w he re se nte nc e is s ile nt a s to any or de r o f c umu la tio n of s e nte nc e s o r t he re is an improper

order of cumulation, th e sente nce w ill automatically run conc urre ntly

with any other ou tst and ingse nte nc e ). I t is a lso argua ble that the se jud g me nts c ou ld be c or re c te d or re fo rm e d v ia a nunc pro tunc order

to refle ct that they

run conse cutively

with eac h other a

nd with any

other sentenc e that applica

nt is curre ntly

serving

. See E

x parte Madding , 70 S.W .3 d 1 3 1, 135 (Tex.Cr.App. 2002) (whe n oral pronounc ement of sentence and the written j udg ment vary , the ora l pronounce ment controls and this ca n be cor rec ted via nunc pro tunc ). [TH E CO UR T]: H e re we have , M r. Th omp so n, the sit uatio n th a t I ’m

g oin g to require y ou to testify

befor e the jury

and y ou must testify

truthfully or y ou will be fac ing pe rjury

and y ou can be sure I , as we ll as members of the District Attorney ’s s t a f f ar e g o i n g t o b e v e r

y a l e rtt o t h e i s s u e o f

p e r j u r y. No w, y ou are g oin g to g o a

he a d a nd te sti fy , is n’ t th a t c or

re c t? [APPL I CA

NT ]: No , ma ’a

m. [ T H E C O U R T ] : Y o u ’ r e n o tg o i n g t o t e s t i f y? [APPL I CA

NT ]: No , I ’m

no t. [THE COURT] : Then, Mr. Thompson, I ’m g oing to tell y ou this: You will be asked a question and y ou will answer the question. I f y ou ref use to answe r the question, I ’m g oing to hold y ou in contempt of cour t. For e ach c ontempt, Ihave the power to sentence y ou to six months in t he Ha rris County

jail and a $500 f

ine. Eac h contempt. Under stand me? [APPL I CA

NT ]: Ye s, ma ’a

m. [TH E CO UR T]: N ow , th e fi rs t c on te mpt , I ’m no t g oin g to p ut t

he wh ole sixThompson–4

4 The re cord f

urther r efle cts that afte r applica nt’s first r e fusal to answe r bef ore the jury , the trial court he ld him in contempt and assessed “punishm ent at three day s in the Har ris County

jail and a fifty -dollar f

ine.” Af ter his sec ond ref

usal to answer , the trial court stated, “[f]or that one, sir, that’s six months i n t h e Ha rris County jail and a $500 f

ine.” The trial court then stated that ea ch subsequent re fusal to answe r would re sult in “six months in the Har ris County

jail and a $500 f

ine.” For e a c h o f a

p p li c a n t’ s s u b s e qu e n t r e f

u s a ls to an s w e r , th e tr ia l c o u rt s tate d , “ th a t’ s thr e e , ” “tha t’s fo ur ,” and

so on up to “th a t’ s 1 3. ” Th e State su g g e sts that th is p ro c e dure may have re su lte d in a pp lic ant b e inghe ld i n c on te mpt on ly fo r h is f ir st two re fu sa ls t o a

ns we r. Th e State a sse rt s: Ad dit ion a lly , it

a pp e ars that th e tr ia l c ourt a c tual ly held a

pp lic ant i n c on te mpt , a sse sse d h is p un ish me nt, and pr on ounc e d sen te nc e on ly in c on ne c tio n w iththe fi rs t tw o in sta nc es whe re he fai le d to ans we r q ue sti on s p ut t o h im b e fo re the jur y . I ts action stating only

“that’s thre e,” “ that’s four,” and so on in connec tion with the rem aini ng eleve n instances whe re he failed to a nswer a ppear s ineffe ctive to either hold him in contempt, assess pun i s h m en t, pronounce sentenc e, or c umulate any of the contempt sente nces.
5 Ap pli c ant a

pp are ntl y arr ive d a t thi s fi g ur e by mul tip lying the six- mon th s e nte nc e s in c a us e n u mb e r s 1 0 3 6 8 2 2 t h r o u g h 1 0 3 6 8 3 3 b y 1 2 f o r a t o t a l o f 7 2 m o n t h s , t h e n m u l t i p l yi n g t h i s b y 3 0 d a ys months and a five- hundred- dollar fine on you, not the first time, no. As a wa rning I ’m g oing to tell y ou I ’m holding you in contempt. Perhaps it would be f or three day s and a f

ifty -dollar f

ine. Eac h time y ou ref

use to answe r af

ter that, e ach time, y ou will be held in contempt. I ’m not g oing to sa y eac h time that y ou’re being held in contempt. I ’m g oing to sa y , Mr. Thompson, that’s No. 2. Mr. Thompson, that’ s N o. 3. Mr . T ho mps on , th a t’ s N o. 4. Ea c h ti me a ft e r N o. 1 w ill c arr y wi th i t six months in t he Ha

rris County

jail and a $500 f

ine. I want y ou to take me ve ry seriously on this because they

would not run conc urre ntly ; they would run consec utively , one stac ked on the other . You ar e g oing to testify . Do y ou understand me ? Do y ou understand me ? [APPL I CA

NT ]: Iun de rs tand

y ou ve ry we ll. When the State called a

pplicant to testify

befor e the jury , applicant a nswere d the State’s first question asking applicant to introduce himself. Applicant re fused to answ er the other thirteen que stions that the St ate a sked. 4 Ap pli c ant a lle g e s in

his wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

c ite d a nd se nte nc e d h im for c ontempt thirteen times and cumulate d his sentence s, requiringhim to serve 2,163 day s and 5Thompson–5

for a total of 2,160 day s, and then a dding the 3-day sentenc e in ca

use number 1036821 f

or a total of 2,163 day s (6 x 12 x 30 + 3 = 2,163)

.

6 Sectio n 2 1

. 0 0 2 ( h ) ( 1 ) p r o v id e s th a t a p e r s o n ma y n o t b e c o n f

in e d f o r c r im in a l c o n te mp t of court long er tha

n “18 months, including three or more pe riods of conf inement for c ontempt arising out of the same matter that equa l a cumulative total of 18 months[.] ”

7 Applicant alleg es that he is curre n t ly confine d in a Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice (TDCJ) fa cility on a 75-y ear sentenc e for burg lary out of Har ris County , and that, wh en h e has c omp le te d s e rv ingthi s s enten c e , h e wi ll b e tr a ns fe rr e d b y

TD CJ to th e Ha

rr is C ounty

ja il t o c umu la tiv e ly

se rv e the c on te mpt

se nte nc e s at is su e in t

his c a se . T he State a

pp e ars to a c c e pt that th is is a su ff ic ie nt r e str a int

on a pp lic ant’ s li be rt

y to i nv ok e thi s Co ur

t’ s o ri g ina l ha

be a s juri sd ic tion t o re vie w the c on te mpt

or de rs . T he State a sse rt s: On the su bje c t of re str a int , a

pp lic ant a lleges a t p. vi o f h is a pp lic a tio n th a t he is prese ntly confine d in the McConnell Uni t o f t h e Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice as a

result of his violation of parole in connec tion with his seventy -five y ear se nte nc e fr om H arr is C ounty , a nd that H on . T ommy

Th oma s, S heri ff o f H arr is County , Texas filed detaine r s ag ainst him with Tex as De partment of Criminal Just ice ba se d u po n th e c on te mpt jud g me nts a g a ins t him. Re str a int in t his c on te xt is b ro a dly construed, ( citations omitt ed), so presumably a detainer filed with a prison inmate’s custodian pre venting the inmate’s immediate r elea s e u p o n c o mp le ti o n

o r r e le a s e from a sente nce i s a s u ff

icient re straint on a per son’s liberty to invoke a cour

t’s habea s corpus jurisdiction. B ut, insofar a s the Court did not reque st briefing on the matter of a pp lic ant’ s r e str a int , the State wi ll as su me the Court is sa tis fi e d tha t app lic ant i s to pay $6,050.00 in fines. Applicant c laims that these sentenc es violate Sec tion 21.002(h)(1),
T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE
. He r equests that he be discharg ed “f rom the illeg al and e x cessive 2,163 6 day s confineme nt and the $6,050.00 fine .” We filed a nd set this case a

nd order ed brie fing on thr e e iss ue s: 1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider applica nt’s orig inal application fo r a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s. 2. Whether applica

nt’s sentenc e excee ded the statutory maxi mum for a c ontempt sentenc e as de fined in Section 21.002(h) (1) of the Texas Gover

nment Code. 3. Whether applica

nt’s confine ment for c ontempt as order ed by the 248 District

th Court vio la te s h is d

ue pr oc e ss r ig hts

. 7Thompson–6

sufficie ntly

restra ined for the purpose of invoking its orig in al habe as cor pus jurisdiction, and will not attempt to address the matter of applicant’ s restra int further.

8 J udg e Te ag ue’s dissenting opinion in E x parte Renier

tho ro ug hly

de sc ri be s th e “ ba sic structure ” of this Court’s orig inal habea s corpus jurisdiction a nd various leg islative regulations of this jurisdi ction. See E

x parte Re nier , 734 S.W .2d 349, 354-74, 356 (Te x .Cr.App. 1987) (T eague, J., d iss e nti ng ) (this Court ha s “ vir tua lly un lim ite d” or ig ina l ha

be a s c or pu s juri sd ic tio n s ub

je c t to regulation by

the L eg islature, “w hich has e nacte d laws limiti ng t h e ex erc ise of these power s and pr e sc ri bin g pr oc e dure s to e ff e c tuate the m” ); c om

pa re Ex pa rteDa v is , 947 S.W .2d 216, 221-31 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996) (McCormick, P.J ., concur ring ) (Ar ticle 11.071, T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC ., is a valid leg islative regulation of this Court’s origina l habea s corpus jurisdi ction and provide s the exclusive procedur es for

the e x ercise of this Court’s orig inal habea s corpus jurisdiction to g rant habea s corpus relief to a

n applicant seeking relief from a judgme nt imposing a pe n al t y o f death) (c i t i n g Renier , 734 S.W. 2d a t 36 2 ( Te a g ue , J., dis se nti ng )) ; se e als o Ex pa rteSm ith , 977 S.W .2d 610, 611 n.4 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998) (noting that Presiding Judge McCormick’s c oncurr ing opinion in Da v is “wa s joine d b y a ma

jo r it y o f th e Co u rt an d ma

y b e r e g ar d e d a s an o p in io n f o r th e Co u rt” )

. The Jurisdi ction Th e State c la ims tha

t th is “ Court ha s jur isd ic tio n to con sid e r an or ig ina l app lic a tio n f or wr it of habea s corpus arising from a trial court’s contempt order .” Article 5, Sec tion 5(c), T EX . C O N ST .,

c on ta ins a br oa d g ra nt o f o ri g ina l ha

be a s c or pu s ju ri sd ic tio n to thi s Cour

t. I n r e le va

nt p art , A rt ic le 5, Section 5(c) , states that “[s] ubject to such re g ulatio n s as m ay be pre scribed by

law,” this Court “shall have the power to issue the writ of habea s corpus.” See State v. Briggs , 351 S.W .2d 892, 894 (Tex.Cr.App. 1961) (this Court’s orig inal jurisdiction to is sue writ of ha beas c orpus is “unlimited” subject to leg islative regulation). I t is well s ettled t hat t he constit utional g rant of orig inal jurisdiction to this C ourt “to issue the wr it of habeas co rpus” pe rmits this Court to review a contempt orde r
enter ed by

a district cour

t. Se e Ex pa rteEu re

ste , 725 S.W .2d 214, 216 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986) (pr oper

c ours e of re vie w fr om a c on te mpt or de r e nte re d in a dis tr ic t c ourt is by or ig ina l a pp lic a tio n f

or a wr it of ha be a s c or pu s) ; Ex parte Ram sey , 6 42 S.W. 2d 48 3, 48 4 n .1 (T e x.Cr .App . 1 98 2) (s a me ); Ex pa rte Mo or e ho us e , 614 S.W .2d 450, 451 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981) (same). 8Thompson–7

d i s cu s s i o no f t h e “ b as i c s t ru ct u re ” o f t h i s C o u rt ’s o ri gi n al h ab ea s co rp u s j u ri s d i ct i o ni nJ u d ge Tea g ue’s dissenting o p i nion in Renier is not contrary

to the majority

opinion in Renier

and is consistent with well settled ca se law, c ited in the body of this opinion, that this Court has orig inal habea s corpus jurisdiction to review a contempt order enter ed by a district cour t. See R enier , 734 S.W .2d at 360 n.11, 364 (Te ag ue, J., di ssenting)

. Due P r oc e ss The State a

rg ues that the trial c ourt “c o rre ctly held [applicant] in contempt of court and order ed him punished for initially ref using to testify .” The State, howeve r, also cla ims that “the trial court’s subse quent ac tions (1) direc ting a nd/or allowing the State to multipl y the contempt violations by asking applicant a dditional questions and (2) holding applicant in conte mpt and further punishing him for re fusing to answer those questions denied a

pplicant due pr ocess of

law.” Th e State a sse rt s th a t th e du e -p ro c e ss i ssu e is c on tr oll e d by the U nit e d St a te s Su pr e me Court’s decision in Y

ates v. United States , 355 U.S. 66, 68-74 (1957). In Y ates , a wi tne ss w a s h e ld in c ri min a l c on te mpt

e le ve n ti me s o n Jun e 30 fo r he r re fu sa l to ans we r e le ve n qu e sti on s r e la tin g to whether persons other

than her self we re c ommunist s. Se e id

. Th e wi tne ss ha d be e n held i n ci vil contempt on J une 26 in the same proc eedingfor r efusingto answer four que stions that were similar to the ones that she r efuse d to answer on J une 30. Se e id . The witness’ r efusa l to answer in Y ates was not so absolute a s it was in this case. Se e id . The witness in Y ates answe red most of the
pr os e c uti on ’s qu e sti on s and re fu se d to ans we r o nly

tho se qu e sti on s that wer e “ wi thi n a g e ne ra lly define d are a of inter

rog ation” (i.e ., questions asking her to iden t i fy o t hers a s being communists).
Se e id . The Supreme Court decided that the prosec ution could not “multiply contempts by

further questions within that area ” and that the witness was guilty of “only one conte mpt.” Se e id . The Court stated:
A w itn e ss, of

c ours e , c ann ot “ pic k a

nd c ho os e ” the qu e sti on s to w hic h a n a ns we r w illThompson–8

9 Th e State c ite s v ari ou s o the r a uth or iti e s in

su pp or t of the c la im that it

vio la te s due pr oc e ss for applicant to be cited for more than one c ontempt. For e x ample, in Un ite d S tat es v . Co ste llo , 198 F

. 2 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 4 ( 2 Ci r . 1 9 5 2), cert. de nied , 344 U.S. 521 (1952), the Sec ond Circuit Court of

nd Appea ls stated:
We are of the opin i o n that the convictions on Counts 7, 9, 10 and 11 must be re ve rs e d. Ea c h of tho se c ounts de a lt wi th the de fe nd ant’ s re fu sa l to ans we r a sp e c if ic question put to him afte r he ha d flatly ref used to g ive any

further testimony

on that particula r day . Certainly

the re fusal to test ify

was a n act in conte mpt of the Commi ttee for

which the defenda

nt was subject to the punishment pre scribed by the statute. But whe n the def endant made h i s p o s ition clear, the Commi ttee could not multipl y the contempt, and the punishment, by continuing to a sk him questions each b e g iv e n . T h e ma

n a g e me n t o f th e tr ia l r e s ts w it h th e ju d g e an d n o p arty c an be permitted to usurp that func tion. (Citation om itted). Howeve r, i t is equally clea r that the pr os e c uti on

c ann ot m

ult ipl y c on te mpt s b y

rep e a te d q

ue sti on ingon

the same su bje c t of in qu iry

wi thi n w hic h a

re c a lc itr ant w itn e ss a lr e a dy ha s r e fu se d a

ns we rs . (Citation omit ted).
E v en though w e assume the Gover nment corr ect in its contention that the 11 quest i ons in this case cove red more than a sing le subject of inquiry , it appear s that ever y question fell within the are a of r efusa l established by petitioner on the first day [J une 26] of her cross-e x amination. The Gove rnment admits, pursuant to the holding of (citation o mit te d) , th a t on ly on e c on te mpt

wo uld re su lt i f M rs . Y a te s h a d f la tly ref used on June 26 to answer any qu e s ti o n s an d h a d ma in ta in e d s u c h a p o s it io n . We de e m it a fo rti or i true that whe re a witness draw s the lines of re fusal in less swee ping fashion by

declining to answer

questions within a gene rally define d are a of int e rr og a tio n, the pr os e c uto r c ann ot m ult ipl y c on te mpt s by fu

rt he r que sti on s w ith in that are a. The policy

of the lawmust be to e ncoura g e testimony ; a witness willing to testify fre ely as to all are as of investigation but one, should not be subject to more nume ro us c ha

rg e s o f c on te mpt

tha n a wi tne ss u nw ill ingto g ive any te sti mony a t a ll. Havingonce c arve d out an ar ea of ref usal, petitioner remained withi n its boundaries in a ll h e r s u

b s e qu e n t r e f

u s a ls

. T h e s li g h t mo d if

ic ati o n o n Ju n e 3 0 o f the are a of r e f u s a l d id n o t c ar r y b e y o n d th e b o u n d ar ie s a lr e a dy

e s ta blish e d [o nJu n e 2 6 ]. Wherea s on J une 26 the witness ref used to identify

other pe rsons as Communists , on J une 30 she refuse d to do so only if those persons would be hurt by her ide ntification. Although the latter ba sis is not identical to the for mer, the a rea of re fusal set out by it necessa rily fell within the limit s drawn on J une 26. We ag ree with petitioner that only one conte mpt is shown on the facts of this ca se. See Yates , 355 U.S. at 73-74 (e mphasis in origina l). 9Thompson–9

time eliciting the sa

me answe r: his refusa l to give a ny testimony . I n other words, the c on te mp t was to ta l w he n h e state d th a t he wo uld no t te sti fy , a

nd the re fu sa ls there afte r to answe r specific questions can not be considered as any thing more than expre s s io n s o f h is in te n ti o n to a dh e r e to h is e ar li e r s tate me n t an d a s s u c h w e r e not separ ately punishable. (Citations omitt ed).

10 Th e State als o argues that “ it a pp e ars fr om Y

ates and the other

case s mentioned that due proce ss allows only

one convic tion for contem p t wh er e a witness asser ting no va lid privilege or excuse ref

uses to testify

at all in a sing le proc eeding , as applica nt did in thi s case .”

11 I t is, therefor e, unnec essar y for us to addr ess the sec ond issu e u pon which we order ed briefingconce rning whether applicant’ s sen t ence (s) violate Sec tion 21.002(h)(1) of the Texas Gover nment Code. We b e lie ve tha

t w he re , a s h e re , a

wi tne ss i nd ic a te s o uts ide the jur y ’s pr e se nc e that he wi ll
not answer

any questions and af

terwa rds co n s i s t entl y

maintains that position before the jur y by ref using to a nswer any questions ( except for introduc ing himself) , Y ates establishes, as a

matter of d u e p r o c e s s , th a t o n ly o n e c o n te mp t oc curs. See Yates , 3 55 U. S. at 73 (o nly on e c on te mpt

wo uld have r esulted “if Mr s. Yates h ad flatly ref used on June 26 to answer anyquestions and had maintained such a

position”) (empha sis in original); Cos te llo , 198 F.2d at 204 (wher e witness has 10
ref used to testify , a committee cannot multipl y his c ontempt by continuing to a sk him questions each tim e e lic iti ngthe same ans we r) . T he pr os e c uti on c an n ot m a ke th e witne ss l ia ble fo r m ult ipl e contempts by

putting the witness on the sta nd and g etting him to re fuse to answ er multiple questions afte r the witness ha s previously indicated he will not testi fy

. See Yates , 355 U. S. at 7 3- 74 ; Cos te llo , 198 F.2d at 204. We, therefor e, ag ree with the State that “due pr ocess allows only one convic tion for c ontempt.” See Yates , 355 U.S. at 74. 11
The Re m e dy
B ut, we d isa g re e wi th t

he State ’s po sit ion

that “ on ly

a pp lic ant’ s c on te mpt

c on vic tio n inThompson–10

Ca us e No . 1 03 68 21 is v a lid ” and th at the “ re ma ini ngtw e lve c on te mpt c on vic tio ns in C a

us e No s. 1036822-1036833" are “void.” We believe t hat t he appropriate remedy in this case is to set aside all thirteen c ontempt judgments (c ause numbe rs 1036821 throug h 1036833) and t o gra n t relief without prejudice to fur

ther proc eeding s in the District Court not inconsist ent with this opini on. The judg ments in cause numbe rs 1036821 throug h 1036833 in the 248 District C o u rt of th
Har ris County , Texas, are set aside. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

H e r v e y , J.

Deliver ed: Marc h 5, 2008 Pub lis h