, 

Writ of Habeas Corpus Granted, Opinion and Order issued May 26, 1999 

In The 

<!rourt of .Appeals 

1J1iftq ilistrict of wexas at ilallas 

No. 05-99-00703-CV 

IN RE ANGELIA K. BURLESON f/k/a ANGELIA K. PHELPS, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 94-2763-Y 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Before Justices Kinkeade, James, and Roach 

Opinion By Justice James 

In this habeas corpus proceeding, relator Angeli a K. Burleson f/k/a Angeli a K. Phelps was held 

in contempt of court for her failure to comply with a divorce decree requirement that she inform her exspouse of her current home address, home telephone number, name of employer, place of employment, 

work telephone number, and the address of their child's school or day care center each time any change 

occurred. The trial court ordered relator committed to jail for two years but suspended the sentence and 

placed relator on two years probation. Because we conclude the trial court's imposition of a two year 

sentence of confinement is beyond the maximum allowed by law, we grant the writ of habeas corpus. 

Angelia K. Burleson and Scott A. Phelps were married and had one child, Wesley Phelps. 

Burleson and Phelps subsequently divorced. The final divorce decree appointed Burleson and Phelps 

as joint managing conservators of Wesley, with the dates of their respective rights to possession of 

Wesley specified in the decree. The decree also ordered Phelps and Burleson to keep each other 
informed of his or her current home address, home telephone number, name of employer, place of 

employment, work telephone number, and the address of Wesley's school or day care center. 

Phelps filed a motion for enforcement of the divorce decree alleging Burleson did not comply 

with the decree's provision for Phelps' possession ofWesley approximately thirty-six times. Phelps also 

contended Burleson failed to comply with the divorce decree provision requiring Burleson inform him 

when she changed her place of residence. Phelps requested the trial court hold Burleson in contempt for 

failing to comply with the divorce decree order and impose a jail sentence and fine. After a hearing, the 

trial court granted the motion in part. In its order, the trial court crossed through all findings of contempt 

except, in pertinent part, the finding that Burleson failed to keep Phelps fully and promptly informed of 

changes in her current home address. 

The trial court assessed attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $1290 against Burleson. The 

trial court also imposed a two year sentence of confinement in jail for the contempt. The tria! court 

suspended the sentence and placed Burleson on probation for two years. Burleson then filed this petition 

for writ of habeas corpus. In her first issue, Burleson contends probation is a sufficient restraint on her 

liberty to permit the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In her three other issues, Burleson 

argues the trial court's order of enforcement and suspension of commitment to confinement is void 

because: ( 1) the maximum incarceration period for criminal contempt is six months; (2) the motion for 

enforcement was not sufficiently specific as to the alleged violation dates; and (3) the order of 

enforcement is not sufficiently specific as to the alleged dates, times, and places where Burleson failed 

to inform Phelps of changes in her current home address, home telephone number, and the address of 

Wesley's school. 

The trial court· s probation order requires Burleson to report to the probation officer each month. 

The Texas Supreme Court has held the imposition of probation, with a requirement that the relator report 

to a probation officer, is a sufficient restraint on a relator's liberty to entitle the relator to the right to 

-2-
petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Brister, 801 S.W.2d 833, 834-35 (Tex. 1990) (orig. 

proceeding). Therefore, Burleson is entitled to habeas corpus review and we sustain her first issue. See 

id. However, in order to grant the writ of habeas corpus, this Court must find the commitment order is 

void, "either because it was beyond the power of the court or because it deprived the relator of his liberty 

without due process oflaw." See Er:parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Tex. 1980) (orig. proceeding). 

In this case, the sentence imposed by the trial court in its order of enforcement is for criminal 

or "punitive" contempt because the relator cannot by her own actions "purge" herself of the contempt and 

avoid the sentence. See Ex parte Johns, 807 S.W.2d 768, 770-71 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, orig. 

proceeding). The Texas Government Code provides a trial court is limited to imposition of a sentence 

of not more than six months confinement for each finding of criminal contempt. See TEX. Gov'T. CODE 

A.t'm. § 21. 002(b) (Vernon 1988). We conclude the trial court's enforcement order is void because it 

imposes a sentence of two years confinement, which is beyond the maximum sentence permitted qy law. 

See id. Therefore, we sustain Burleson's second issue. 

In her third and fourth issues, Burleson contends Phelps' motion for enforcement and the trial 

court's order do not specify the dates for each alleged act of contempt as required by the Texas Family 

Code. The family code provisions referred to by relator involve the requirements for motions to enforce 

payment of child support obligations. See TEX. F AM. CODE ANN. § 157.002 (b) (Vernon Supp. 1999). 

The particular provision being enforced in this case is not one for payment of child support. Therefore, 

we hold the requirement to include the dates of noncompliance does not apply in this case. The family 

code requires a motion for enforcement of other provisions of a divorce decree to state in ordinary and 

concise language the provision of the order allegedly violated and sought to be enforced, the manner of 

noncompliance, and the relief requested, along with the signature of the movant or her attorney. See TEX. 

F AM. CoDE ANN. § 15 7. 002 (a) (Vernon 1996). The motion in the present case meets these requirements. 

Consequently, we deny Burleson's third and fourth issues. 

-3-
We hereby GRANT relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus because the trial court improperly 

imposed a sentence of more than six months confinement for one act of criminal or "punitive" contempt. 

We hereby ORDER Angelia K. Burleson f/k/a Angelia K. Phelps unconditionally released and 

discharged from those portions of the orders issued February 1, 1999 by the 3 3 Qth District Court ofDallas 

County, Texas in cause number 94-2763-Y styled In the Interest of Wesley Phelps. a Child imposing a 

sentence for contempt and conditions of probation for two years on Angeli a K. Burleson f/k/a Angelia 

K. Phelps. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

990703F.U05 

-4-
pprnl.a 

'rxn.s at ftlnlln.s 

ourts Building 

, Second Floor 

202-4658 

-,0 "'\. 

(.'. Wo c" 

/'<. .t '\ j· f ,. 'j -" -

, ...... "'-· ..,__. .. 

'. 

SCOTT A PHELPS 

10840 MALADY 

DALLt\S TX 75228 

l 

\ ·• 

.... ' 

.. 1 ..,._"! 

1 

.I 

C\ ./ 

!!!'!!:".....;.-·· .. -., • 

--.;:.c· .. 

... 

.. ; .d .... -.. 

11_,.....-,.:-

-- .. ·-·-

ntFRAHL£ AS ADDRESSED 

'7 llllllllllllll I II\ 111111 I 11111111\ II I 1.1 I 1.111111111 1111