1
... S ee Te x. R. App
. P. 47. 4. 

## CO URT OF A PPEALS SEC OND D I STR I CTOF T E XAS FORT WORTH NO. 2
- 0 8
- 3 9 1
- CV
IN T H E IN T E R E S T O F J .R .O ., J R
. , A C HI L D

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

FR O M THE 233RD DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ft er A ppe l l ant J. R. O
. , Sr
. ( Fat her ) fai l ed t o a ppe ar

att he hea r i ng i n t he unde r l yi ng s ui taf

fec t i ng t he parent
- chi l d rel at i ons hi p, t he t r i al co ur ten t ered a defaul tj udg m entappoi nt i ng V
. A
. R
. ( M ot her ) m anagi ng con ser

vat or and Fat her pos se ss or

y c ons er

vat or an d order i ng, am ong ot her t hi ngs , t hat Fat her ha ve no v is it a t io n w it h J .R .O ., J r . a n d t h a tF a t h e r p a y M o t h e r

$ 2 0 2 a m o n t h in c h ild s u p p o r t b e g i n n i n g t h e s e c o n d mo n t h a ft e r h i s re l e a s e f ro m p r i s o n . The t r i al cou r tf ur t her

ordered Fat her

t o pa y $55 a m ont h for m e di ca l s uppor tof t he2
... S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 8 .1 (i ); H al l v. St eph ens on , 919 S. W
. 2d 454,

4 6 7 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 6 , w ri t d e n i e d ); se e a l so Fredo ni a St at e Ba nk v. G en. A m . Li fe I ns . Co. , 881 S
. W
. 2d 279, 284– 85 (Tex. 1994 ) (di sc us si ng
“ l o n g -s ta n d i n g ru l e ” th a t p o i n t m a y b e w a i v e d d u e to i n a d e q u a te b ri e fi n g ). 2 chi l d a nd $75 a m ont h i n ret roac t i ve chi l d s uppor t , al so be gi nni ng t he se con d m ont h a ft er

hi s rel ea se f rom pr i so n. In fo u r p o i n ts , F a th e r, a c ti n g p ro s e , c o n te n d s th a t th e tri a l c o u rt c o m m i tte d re v e rs i b l e e rro r b y e n te ri n g th e d e fa u l t j u d g m e n t. W e a ffir m . T h e atto rne y g e n e ral ’s o ffi c e fi l e d this su i t, as k i n g the tr i a l co u rtto appo i ntconser

vat ors and order

chi l d suppo r t . Fat her , act i ng pr o s e , fil ed an ans w er an d a n a m end ed ans w er . I n a l et t er f i l ed w i t h t he cou r t , Fa t her , w ho w as i nca rce rat ed, ac kno w l edg ed t hathe ha d re c e i v ed not i ce of t he hea r i ng d a te . H e a l s o n o te d th a t h e h a d n o t re c e i v e d a n y v e ri fi c a ti o n th a t th e tri a l c o u rt had f i l ed hi s m ot i on requ es t i ng t he app oi nt m ent of an at t or ney or hi s m ot i on for i ss u a n c e o f a b e n c h w a rra n t. N e i th e r of the se m o ti o n s a p p e a r i n the ap p e l l a te rec ord. Fa t her

di d notap pea r

att he hea r i ng. W e n ot e t h a t wh i l e F a t h e r me n t i o n s h i s mo t i o n fo r a p p o i n t me n tof c o u n s e l a n d re q u e s t s a s re lie f a h e a r in g t h e re o n , n o n e o f h is a rg u m e n t s p e r t a in t o appo i nt m entof

counsel
. W e t herefor e over r ul e hi s poi nt s t o t he ext entt hat h e s e e k s re lie f

re g a rd in g a p p o in t m e n to f c o u n s e l. 23

I n Fa t her ’ s f i rstpoi nt , he argue s t hatt he t r i al co ur ter red by n ot consi der i ng hi s w i sh t o at t end t he hear i ng w hen hi s l et t ers br oug ht t he m at t er to th e tri a l c o u rt’s a tte n ti o n . I n h i s s e c o n d p o i n t, h e a rg u e s th a t th e tri a l c o u rt e rre d b y fai l in g t o c o n side r hi s m o ti o n for a b e n c h w a rra n t an d fai l i n g to consi der

t he fact ors i n favor of hi s request t o appear . I n hi s t hi rd poi nt , Fat her argue s t hatt he t r i al co ur ter red by f ai l i ng t o al l ow hi m t o app ea r att he hea r i ng bec aus e he w as not t he pl ai nt i f f i n t he su i t and di d not i ni t i at e t he l i ti g at i on. H e f ur t her

argue s th a t tri al co ur t s “n ee d t o a r t i cul at e t he fac t ors t hatw ei gh both i n favor

and agai nsti ssui ng a bench w ar rantand i f necessar

y m ake al t er nat i ve ar rang em ent s for i nm at e[ s] t o pres ent t h[ ei r ] s i de of di sp ut e t o t he cou r t . ” Fi nal l y, i n hi s four t h poi nt , Fa t her argue s t hatt he t r i al co ur t ’ s ac t i ons h a r me d h i m. Fat her st at ed i n hi s l et t er t o t he t ria l c our tt hathe had no trecei ved ver i f i ca t i on t hathi s m ot i on for a ben ch w ar rantha d be en f i l ed. And t he m ot i on doe s notap pea r

i n th e a p p e l l at e rec ord, de sp i t e F at her ’ s des i gna t i ng for in c lu s io n i n t h e re c o rd a ll m o t io n s f ile d in t h e t r ia l c o u r t . T h u s , t h e re c o rd is d e v o i d o f an y ev i d e n c e tha t Fa th e r’ s m o ti o n w a s fi l e d w i th the tr i a l co u rt . Buti n hi s l et t er , F a th e r di d i nfor m t he t r i al co ur tof hi s des i re t o be pr esentatt he hear i ng, and he request ed t hatt he t r i al cour ti ssue a bench w ar rantfor

t hatpur pos e. The t r i al co ur ti m pl i ci t l y de ni ed Fat her ’ s requ es tby3
... S e e R in g e r v . K im b a ll , 2 7 4 S .W .3 d 8 6 5 , 8 6 7 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 200 8, no p et . ) ( hol di ng t hat t r i al cou r ti m pl i ci t l y de ni ed i nm at e’ s ben ch w ar rant m ot i on be ca us e t he cou r t di sm i ss ed t he ca se for w ant of pros ec ut i on w hen t he i n m a te d i d n o t a p p e a r fo r a p re tri a l h e a ri n g ).

4
... I n re Z. L
. T. , 1 2 4 S .W .3 d 1 6 3 , 1 6 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ); R i nger , 274 S. W
. 3d a t867.

5
... Z. L
. T. , 124 S. W
. 3d a t165. 4 e n teri n g th e p o sta n sw e r d e fau l t j u d g m e n t. 3 W e t herefore c ons i der w het her

t he t r i al cour tabused i t s di scret i on by denyi ng Fat her ’ s request . W e concl ude t hat i t did n o t. A lt h o u g h a n in m a t e m a y n o t b e d e n ie d a c c e s s t o t h e c o u r t s s im p ly because he i s an i nm at e, t he i nm at e does nothave an absol ut e r i ght t o appear i n pe rso n i n e ver

y c our tproce edi ng. 4 R a th e r, “th e i n m a te’s ri g h t of a c c e ss to th e c o u rts m u s t b e w e i g h e d a g a i n s t th e p ro te c ti o n o f o u r c o rre c ti o n a l s y s te m ’s i n te g ri ty .” 5 I n de t er m i ni ng w het her t o grantan i nm at e’ s ben ch w ar rantm ot i on, a t r i al co ur ts houl d c ons i der a num ber

of fac t ors, i ncl udi ng:

• th e co st a n d i n c o n v e n i e n c e o f t ran sp o rt i n g t h e p r i so n e r t o t h e c o u r t ro o m;

• t he secur i t y r i sk t he pr i soner present s t o t he cour t and pu bl i c;

• w h e t h e r

t h e p r is o n e r ’s c la im s a re s u b s t a n t ia l;

• w het her

t he m at t er ’ s res o lut i on can r easonabl y be del ayed unti l t he pr i soner ’ s rel ease;6
... R i nger , 274 S. W
. 3d a t868.
7
... I d. 8
... I d. 9
... I d. 10
... S ee i d. 5 • w het her

t he pr i soner

can and w i l l of fer ad m i ssi bl e, n o n c u m u la t iv e t e s t im o n y t h a tc a n n o tb e e f fe c t iv e ly pr esent ed by dep osi t i on, t el epho ne, or som e ot her

m eans;

• w h e t h e r

t h e p r is o n e r ’s p re s e n c e is im p o r t a n tin ju d g in g h is dem ea nor

an d c redi bi l i t y;

• w het her

t he t r i al i s t o t he cou r tor a j ur y; an d

• t he pr i soner ’ s probab i l i t y of success on t he m er i t s. 6 I m por t ant l y, i t i s t he i nm at e w ho bea rs t he burden of i den t i f yi ng t he grounds for t h e t r ia l co u rtto g ran t t h e b e n c h w a rra n t m o ti o n o r re q u e st. 7 T h e tri a l c o u rt d o e s n o t h a v e a re s p o n s i b i l i ty to i n d e p e n d e n tl y i n q u i re i n to w h e th e r th e fa c to rs app l y. 8 I f an i nm at e “f ai l s t o pres ent su f

f i ci ent i nfor m at i on t o t he t r i al co ur tfor t he t r i al cour tt o eval uat e t he bench w ar rantrequest ” i n l ig h t o f t he l i st ed fac to rs, t h e tr i a l co u rtd o e s n o t ab u se i ts d i sc reti o n b y d e n y i n g the req u e st. 9 H ere, t he l et t er

co nt ai ns no d i sc us si on or i n fo rm a t i on a tal l ab outt he l i st ed fac t ors. Accordi ngl y, t he t r i al co ur tdi d notab us e i t s di sc reti on by d e n y i n g F a th e r’s re q u e s t b a s e d o n th a t l e tte r. 1011
... 1 3 S
. W
. 3 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 1 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t.),

ov e r r ul e d by Z. L
. T. , 124 S. W
. 3d a t166.

12
... 4 6 8 U .S . 5 1 7 , 5 2 3 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 3 1 9 4 , 3 1 9 8 (1 9 8 4 ).
13
... S ee Tex. R. A pp. P. 34. 1 (st at i ng t hatap pel l at e rec o rd c o n s i st s of c l e rk ’s re c o rd a n d re p o rte r’s re c o rd ); S a b i n e O ffs h o re S e rv ., In c . v . C i ty o f P o rt A r t hur , 595 S
. W
. 2d 840, 841 (Tex. 197 9) (st at i ng t hat af f i dav i t s out si de t he recor d canno tbe consi der ed by app el l at e cour tfor any pur pose ot her

t han d e te rm i n i n g i ts o w n j u ri s d i c ti o n ). 6 Fat her at t ac hed as an ap pen di x t o hi s br i ef a cop y of

a doc um entt hathe cl ai m s t o hav e f i l ed w i t h t he t r i al cou r t . Thi s doc um enti s ent i t l ed “M ot i on for I ss uan c e o f B e n c h W a r ra n t . ” I n i t , F a t h e r s t a t e s t h a t “ [ t ] h i s s u i t c a nnot be fai r l y m ade w i t hout[ hi m ] be i ng at t he hea r i ng t o t es t i f y [ on] hi s ow n beh al f an d t o p re s e n te v id e n c e in d e fe n s e o f t h is s u it .” H e a rg u e s in t h e m o t io n t h a t“ t h is c a s e is u n lik e t h a t o f a n in c a rc e ra t e d p la in t if f w h o c h o o s e s t o f ile s u itw h ile in p ris o n a n d w h o m th e tria l c o u rtd o e s n o t p e rm it . . . to a tt e n d th e h e a rin g .” In th e m o ti o n , Fa t her

ci t es t o Zuni ga v. Zuni ga 11 a n d H udson v. Pal m er 12 a n d st at es t hathe “d oes m ee t t he [ s] t and ard s eti n Zuni ga , s ee al so i ndi vi dua l s w ho a re in c a rc e ra t e d d o n o ta u t o m a t ic [a lly ] lo s e t h e ir a c c e s s t o t h e c o u r t s a s a re s u lt o f th e i r i n c a rc e ra ti o n .” Thatm ot i on i s notpa r tof t he app el l at e rec ord. 13 B uti n t he i nt eres tof j ust i ce, w e note t hat even i f Fat her had pr oper l y f i l ed t he m ot i on w i t h t he t r i al cou r t , t he t r i al co ur tne ver t hel es s w oul d not hav e a bus ed i t s di sc ret i on by14
... S ee Z. L
. T. , 124 S. W
. 3d a t164, 166. 15
... I d. 7 d e n y i n g F a th e r’s re q u e s t. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt o f T e x a s h a s re j e c te d F a th e r’s con t ent i on t hatt he ana l ys i s of w het her t he t r i al co ur tough tt o ha ve grant ed a req u e st fo r a b e n c h w a rra n t d e p e n d s o n w h e th e r t h e i n m a te i s th e p l a i n ti ff. 14 I n Z. L
. T. , t h e in m a t e s o u g h ta b e n c h w a r ra n t a s t h e r e s p o n d e n tin a s u it br oug htby t he at t or ney gen eral ’ s of f i ce, and t he cour t hel d t hat t he i nm at e had th e b u rde n to e sta b l i sh g rou n d s fo r t h e b e n c h w a rra n t he so u g h t. 15 H e re , Fat her ’ s m ot i on provi des no di sc us si on or as se r t i on of any of t he fac t ors se tout i n Z .L .T
. Thu s, even i f Fat her had f i l ed t hi s m ot i on w i t h t he t r i al cour t , t he t r i al c o u rtw o u l d n o t ha v e ab u se d i ts d i sc reti o n b y d e n y i n g i t. A c c o rd i n g l y , w e o v e rru l e F a th e r’s fo u r p o i n ts a n d a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, LI V I N G STO N , an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Se pt e m be r 24, 2009