Title: Ex Parte Benitez
Citation: 590 S.W.2d 704
Docket Number: B-8840
State: Texas
Issuer: Texas Supreme Court
Date: November 21, 1979

590 S.W.2d 704 (1979) Ex parte Orlando L. BENITEZ, Relator. No. B-8840. Supreme Court of Texas. November 21, 1979. Rehearing Denied December 31, 1979. Librado Pena, Humberto L. Juarez, Jr., Laredo, for relator. Maria Elena Quintanilla, George J. Person, Ada Cronfel, Argentina Cronfel, Laredo, Tony Martinez, Brownsville, for respondent. POPE, Justice. Relator Orlando L. Benitez in this habeas corpus proceeding says that he should be *705 released from confinement in the Webb County jail because the orders which he is charged with violating were not clear, specific and unambiguous as required by Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.1967). The judge of the 111th District Court of Webb County, by an order dated September 24, 1979, confined relator for contempt because he had violated two previously issued court orders, one dated October 29, 1976, and the other dated August 17, 1979. Victor Manuel Salinas on October 5, 1976, commenced the underlying suit against relator Benitez and several of his business enterprises. Salinas sought a declaratory judgment construing a contract that Benitez had made to assign some of his accounts receivable. Benitez was in the business of subdividing property and selling lots. On October 29, 1976, Benitez and the several other parties to that action agreed to an order appointing a receiver who was charged with the duty of taking control of all Benitez's contracts, as well as the accounts receivable that were owing him and his co-defendants. That agreed order provided: On May 4, 1979, the trial judge conducted a hearing upon a motion to hold Benitez in contempt for his violation of the October 29, 1976, order. The trial judge found Benitez in contempt and ordered him placed in the custody of the Webb County sheriff until he purged himself of contempt by paying the sum of $7,300 into the registry of the court. The trial judge also ordered that Benitez would not be placed in jail if he paid into the registry of the court $3,650 by June 4, 1979, and a like amount by July 4, 1979. The validity of neither the October 29 order nor the May 4 contempt order are here questioned, and relator has not supplied any record which discloses that either of them is void. Upon motion that Benitez had not complied with the terms of the order suspending enforcement of the May 4 contempt order, the trial court on September 6, 1979, ordered Benitez to appear on September 24 to show cause why the suspended judgment of contempt of May 7 should not be made operative and why the court "should not impose its penalty and sentence of Contempt." The show cause order incorrectly referred to the earlier May 4 contempt order as the order of May 7. Benitez had already been found in contempt; the only purpose for the hearing about the May 4 order was to determine whether he had failed to purge himself of the contempt as that order permitted. On July 20, 1979, Benitez and the parties to the suit entered into another agreement that the trial court embodied in an order signed on August 17, 1979. By that order relator Benitez was "enjoined from receiving any monies of any kind be they in the form of payments, remunerations, in collection of any indebtedness and cease from dealing in all of the following described properties for a period of thirty (30) calendar days from this date to August 20, 1979, or as soon thereafter as Ordered by the Court." The order described and listed the real estate; designated the receiver as the only person with power to deal with the property; enjoined Benitez from making any contracts, conveyances, exchanges or in any way dealing with the property; and *706 enjoined him from interfering with the receiver's duties. The court further ordered: On September 5, 1979, Johnny Morris and wife, who had previously intervened in the action and had participated in the agreed injunction orders of August 17, 1979, filed their motion for contempt and specified Benitez's violations in these words: It is apparent that the Motion for Contempt asserts violations of matters different from the commands of the August 17 order. On September 6, the judge issued a separate order to Benitez commanding him to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violation of the August 17, 1979, order. Attached to the show cause order was the motion for contempt which is quoted above. Thus, on September 6, the trial court issued two ordersone requiring Benitez to show whether he had purged himself of contempt of the 1976 agreed order as the *707 contempt order of May 4, 1979, permitted him to do; and the other charging him with disobedience of the August 17, 1979, order. Both of these September 6 show cause orders were set for hearing on September 24, 1979. On September 24, the trial judge heard both of the September 6 show cause orders. The court then embodied a number of rulings in a single order. He ruled that Benitez had not purged himself of his contempt of the 1976 agreed order as the decree of May 7, 1979, permitted, and ordered that Benitez be remanded to the sheriff of Webb County until he purged himself of that contempt. The court also in general terms found Benitez "in all things" in contempt of the August 17 order but did not specify what particular part of the August 17 order Benitez had violated. The court then made a number of new orders in the nature of commands that Benitez should obey in the future, but these commands did not state that they were violations of past orders. The court also denied a request by Benitez's lawyer to withdraw as counsel, denied a motion that the judge recuse himself, and stated new orders for the guidance of the receiver. Benitez makes no attack upon the clarity or specificity of the May 4 order finding him in violation of the 1976 agreed order. Neither does he attack the proceedings which led to that contempt order. The only part of that order that was before the court in the present proceeding was whether Benitez had purged himself of the contempt. Benitez does not assert here that he has purged himself; his only attack is that the September 6 show cause order required him to excuse himself from a contempt order dated May 7 rather than May 4. The variance between the date of the original contempt order (May 4) and the mistaken date (May 7) does not invalidate the order remanding Benitez to the sheriff because of his failure to purge himself of contempt. The May 4 contempt order was described in both the motion to show cause and the order remanding Benitez to the sheriff in identical terms except for the date. Criminal convictions are sustained notwithstanding greater variance in dates. In Jackson v. State, 501 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Cr. App.1973), an indictment charged the defendant with an offense committed on August 29, 1972, and the conviction was affirmed even though the proof was that the offense occurred on July 29, 1972. In Washington v. State, 492 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. Cr.App.1973), the indictment stated the date of the offense was on or about May 5, 1968, but the evidence was that it happened on May 5, 1967. The one-year variance did not defeat the clarity and specificity required for a charge against the defendant. The court's order of September 24, 1979, so mixes a number of new orders with the old ones that there is uncertainty about the violations for which Benitez was additionally in contempt. There are also substantial variances between the commands in the August 17 order and the grounds for contempt stated in the motion to show cause why Benitez is not in violation of the August 17 order. The motion to show cause, stated above, includes charges of disobediences of commands that we do not find in the August 17 order. We are unable to locate the August 17 orders of which Benitez has been adjudged in contempt. That part of the order of September 24 will not support the contempt order. That part of the September 24 order effectuating the earlier order of May 4, 1979, and remanding Orlando L. Benitez to the custody of the sheriff of Webb County until he purges himself of the contempt satisfies the rule of clarity and certainty required by Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.1967). The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and the relator is ordered remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Webb County until he purges himself of contempt of the May 4, 1979, contempt order.