Case Name: Ex parte Don GRIFFIN
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1984-12-19
Citations: 682 S.W.2d 261
Docket Number: No. C-3358
Parties: Ex parte Don GRIFFIN.
Judges: ROBERTSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 682
Pages: 261–264

Head Matter:
Ex parte Don GRIFFIN.
No. C-3358.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Dec. 19, 1984.
Latham & Moss, Bill Mills Latham, Corpus Christi, for relator.
Gary, Thomasson, Hall & Marks, Shirley Selz, Corpus Christi, Larry R. Margolies, Dallas, for respondent.

Opinion:
CAMPBELL, Justice.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding. The trial court found Relator, Don Griffin, in contempt of court for violating a temporary injunction. He was ordered to jail for 30 days and fined $104,000, $500 for each of 208 separate violations of the temporary injunction.
We hold the large penalties ordered in this case make it a serious offense, entitling Griffin to a jury trial. Griffin was not afforded a right to jury trial and did not waive that right. Therefore, he is discharged from custody.
The temporary injunction prohibited Griffin from:
(1) selling, offering for sale, participating in or advising about a sale, or soliciting the sale of chemical specialties, germicides, cleaning chemicals, degreasers, insecticides, maintenance chemicals, spe cialty coatings, chemicals for turf maintenance, water treatment, air and water pollution, and related products similar to NCH Corporation's products to any account identified on the attached sealed exhibit "A" within the counties San Pa-tricio, Nueces, Jim Wells, Brooks, and Duval; and (2) from diverting, taking away or attempting to take away the accounts identified in the sealed attached exhibit "A" within the counties of San Patricio, Nueces, Jim Wells, Brooks, or Duval.
The temporary injunction provided that it would be in effect for 24 months following July 29,1981, or until the signing of a final judgment after a trial upon the merits. Attached to the temporary injunction judgment was Exhibit A, a seven-page listing of NCH customers and their mailing addresses. Griffin appealed from the temporary injunction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in an unpublished opinion.
In its motion for contempt, NCH Corporation complained that Griffin violated the temporary injunction "on multiple occasions" by selling chemical products to 25 named customers listed in the attachment to the temporary injunction during its term. It sought punishment "by a fine of $500 for each violation" and by confinement in jail for a period not to exceed six months.
Griffin asserts he should be released because: (1) he was denied a trial by jury; (2) the temporary injunction is void under Rule 683; and (3) he did not have sufficient notice of the charges against him. We agree with the first contention and grant the writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, we do not address the other two issues.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to jury trials for serious offenses, but not petty offenses. Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 2178, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975). We concluded in Ex Parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.1976), that two separate $500 fines in a case of constructive criminal contempt did not take the case out of the category of petty offenses.
The United States Supreme Court in Muniz v. Hoffman, supra 422 U.S. at 476, 95 S.Ct. at 2190, declined to hold that a jury is required where any fine greater than $500 is contemplated. Instead, the Supreme Court held it would look at the individual defendant, the seriousness of the risk and the extent of possible deprivation. Other courts have held a right to jury trial exists where potential fines exceed $500. U.S. v. Hamdan, 552 F.2d 276 (9th Cir. 1977) [$1,000 fine]; Black Police Officers Assoc. v. Richmond, 548 F.2d 123 (4th Cir. 1977) [$1,000 fine]; Douglass v. First Nat. Realty Corp., 543 F.2d 894 (D.C.Cir.1976) [$5,000 fine].
We hold that a contempt action in which contemnor is fined $104,000 and ordered to jail for 30 days is a serious offense. Therefore, Griffin was entitled to a jury trial.
NCH Corporation contends we must presume Griffin waived his right to a jury' trial because the record does not establish that he demanded a jury. However, in a contempt hearing for a serious offense, waiver of the right to jury trial cannot be presumed from a silent record. See Samudio v. State, 648 S.W.2d 312 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3113, 77 L.Ed.2d 1368 (1983).
The relator is discharged from custody.
ROBERTSON, J., concurs.
GONZALEZ, J., dissents, joined by SPEARS, J.
. All citations to rules refer to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.