### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 182 -CV

In re Rhett

WebsterP ease

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M LEE COUNTY

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
In this original pr ocee ding, D essie Mar ia Andre ws seeks an “Emer g ency Application for Ha beas Relief

” on beha lf of her

son, Rh et t W eb s t er P ease , who was a rre sted and de tained pursuant to a c apias orde r. F or the re asons that follow, we de ny her a pplication for ha

beas c orpus relief
. “A wr it of habea s corpus is a collater al attack on the trial court’s order , and it is the relator’s burde n to de monstrate that the order is void beca use it wa s either beyond the power of the court to i ssue it or bec ause the order deprive d the re lator of his liberty without due proce ss of law.” In reAguile ra , 3 7 S. W.3 d 43, 4 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 20 00 , o ri g . p ro c e e din g ); se e als o E xpa rte Ba rn e tt , 6 0 0 S
. W
. 2 d

2 5 2 , 2 5 4 (T ex . 1 9 8 0 ) ( t o o rd er re l ea s e o f r el at o r i n

h ab ea s co rp u s p ro ce ed i n g, “the trial court’s order of commitment must be void, either beca use i t was beyond the power of the court or be cause it deprived the r elator of his liberty

without d u e p ro ce s s o f law.” ). In a habe as corpus pr ocee ding, the relator bea rs t he burden to bringforwa rd an a dequate rec ord, providingproof of the nece s s ar y el em ents for the r elief r equeste d, or an a ppellate c ourt must presume that theOn Marc h 28, 2008, the Attorney Gene ral provide d notice to t h is Court that P ease was 1 rele ased f rom jail on bond. Pease f iled interlocutory

appea ls from ca

use number 12,380 in the 21st District Court of 2 L ee County

that wer e dis missed for lac k of jurisdiction. See P ease v . Texas Att’y G en. , No. 03-07- 00432-CV, slip op. at 1 (Tex. A pp.—Austin Ma

rch 20, 2008, no pet. h.) (me m. op.); Pease v . Texas Att’y Ge n. , No. 03-07-00704- CV, slip op. at 1 (Tex. A pp.—Austin Jan. 8, 2008, no pet.) (me m. op.). On Fe bruar

y 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , P ea se filed a

n additional notice of inter locutory appea l with this Court a pp e a lin g an or de r de nying c ha ng e of ve nu e , an or de r r e g ard ingc a shbo nd , a nd the or de r f

or c a pia s, an d o nFe b ru ary

1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , P ea s e a l s o i n i t i at eda m an d am u s p ro ce ed i n g. 2 e vid e nc e su

pp or ts the tr ia l court ’s jud g me nt o r a c tio ns . See E x parte Linder , 783 S.W .2d 754, 760 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, orig . proce eding ).

The un d e r ly

in gp r o c e e d in g is ane n f

o r c e me n t a c ti o nb y

th e O f f ic e o f th e A tt o rney Gene ral of T e xa s a g a in s t P e a s e to e n f o r c e c h il d s u p p o rt o b li g a ti o n s . A f

te r Pe a s e f a il e d to a p pear befor e the tria l court as order ed in the child support enfor ceme nt a ction, the trial court orde red the issuance of

a ca pias, authorizing P ease ’s arrest, pending his appea ranc e at a hearing on the motion to e nf or c e and fo r c on te mpt
. Th e c a

pia s als o pro vid e d for Pe a se ’s re le a se up on the po sti ng of a c a sh bond in th e amo un t o f

$ 2 , 8 0 0 , p e n d in g h is a

p p e ar an c e a t t

h e h e ar in g . A f

te r Pe a s e w a s ar

rested purs ua nt to t he c a pia s o rd e r, An dr e ws fi le d a n “ Em e rg e nc y

Ap pli c a tio n f

or Ha be a s Re lie f” on

be ha lf
o f P e a s e s e e k i n g h i s r e l e a s e f r o mc u s t o dy. The Attorne y Gene ral filed a

response at the reque st of 1 thi s Co ur t. In Andre ws’s application, she contends that the c apias orde r is void. She c ontends the trial cour

t has not had “plenary power or j urisdiction” to hold hear ings or enter any order from J u l y 2 0 0 7 fo rw ar d

b ec au s e P ea s e h as h adv ar i o u s ap p ea l s p en d i n g i nth e u n d er l yi n g p ro ce ed i n g. 2 Under the family code, however , a trial court retains jurisdiction to enfor ce its own orders duringthe pendenc y of an appea l, a

nd an appea l doe s not suspe nd an order unless the appellate court o r t heAndre ws also contends that Pease wa s denied the r ight to a jur y trial and c ounsel. Her 3 contention as to Pease ’s rig ht to a jury trial is pr emature beca use the contempt hear ing has not been held and no sentenc e has y et been imposed. In any event, Pease does not have the rig ht to a jury trial in the contempt proc eedingif the incar cer ation soug ht is for six months or less and or a fine of $500 or less. See E

x parte W

erblud , 536 S.W .2d 542, 546-47 (Te x . 1976). As to Pea s e’ s d en i al of c ouns e l, s he state s in

he r a pp lic a tio n th a t Pe a se ha s a pp ointe d c ouns e l. 3 court that re ndere d the orde r suspen d s the order
. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 109.001, .002( c) (West 2002). The trial court, therefor e, did not exceed its power by enfor cing its own child support order s and issuing a

capia s for Pea se’s fa ilure to appea r at the he aringon the motion to enforce and fo r c on te mpt
. Andre ws also contends that habea s corpus relief should be g rante d beca

use the trial court violated Pea se’s due proce ss rig hts. She contends t hat t he ex ecute d capia s was not supported by a proba ble ca use af fidavit and thus violated Pease ’s rig ht to be “fr ee of unre asonable sear ches a nd
se izur e s. ” Th e e xec ute d c a pia s, ho we ve r, wa s a

pr op e rl y su ppor

te d o rd e r f

or Pe a se ’s fa ilure to appea r at the e nforc ement hea

ring to r espond to c hild support contempt alleg ations. In its order for issuance of

a ca pias, the trial cour

t found that Pease w as ser ved with n o t i ce o f t h e date , time, and p l ac e t o ap p ea r fo r th e h ea ri n g o nth e m o t i o nt o en fo rc e, b u tth ath e f ai l edt o ap p ea r f

o r t h e h ea ri n g. An dr e ws a lso c on te nd s th a t Pe a se ’s du e pr oc e ss ri g hts we re vio late d b e c a us e Pe a se was de nied ac cess to the c ourts. Pease a ppare ntly is under a di s t ri ct co u rt ’s orde r to obtain the approva l of an administrative j udg e before filing documents with the clerk due to hi s desig nation as
a v ex at i o u s l i t i gan t , b u t An dre ws h as fa i l ed t o p ro v i d e re co rd s u p p o rt th atan ad m i n i s tra t i v e j u d ge pr e ve nte d Pe a se fr om f

ili ngany do c ume nt. An dr e ws ha s fa ile d to sh ow that Pe a se wa s de nie d a c c e ss to t he c ourt s. 34 Andre ws’s eme rg ency

application fo r

h a b e a s c o r p u s r e li e f on beha lf of Rhett Webster Pease is denie d. SeeTex. R. App. P . 52.8(a)
.

__________________________________________ Jan P
. P atter son, Justice B efor e Justices P atter son, P ur year and H enson F iled: April 3, 2008