Court Opinion

ID: 9691778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 08:10:00.228093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:25.758712
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-23-00170-CV
                              __________________

                          IN RE DANNY BURKETT

__________________________________________________________________

                          Original Proceeding
             253rd District Court of Liberty County, Texas
                     Trial Cause No. CV1611135
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Danny Burkett challenges the trial

court’s authority to revoke a probation order and order Burkett to serve a sentence

on a judgment for criminal contempt. We stayed a scheduled hearing on a motion to

revoke Burkett’s probated sentence and obtained a response from the Real Parties in

Interest, Jessie Favors and Deana Miller. We conditionally grant mandamus relief.

                                        1
                                     Background

      In 2017, in a property dispute, the trial court granted permanent injunctive

relief to Jessie Favors and Deana Miller, ruled Favors and Miller were entitled to a

non-exclusive ingress and egress easement, and enjoined Danny Burkett from

impeding access to the easement. See Burkett v. Favors, No. 09-18-00046-CV, 2018

WL 5986424, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Nov. 15, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

“In addition, the trial court ordered ‘that gates shall be placed on each end of the

non-exclusive easement and … the gates will be closed each time after Danny

Burkett enters or leaves the easement.’” Id. Burkett appealed the judgment, which

this Court affirmed. Id. at 3.

       On September 2, 2021, the trial court signed its Order on Fifth Amended

Motion for Enforcement and Contempt. The trial court adjudged Danny Burkett to

be in contempt of court for 551 separate violations of the 2017 judgment for

deliberately failing to close and lock the entrance to the gate on 551 different dates,

from July 18, 2018 to August 29, 2021. The trial court ordered Burkett to serve one

day in jail for each violation for a total of 551 days. The trial court ordered Burkett

to serve 30 consecutive days beginning September 3, 2021, in the Liberty County

Jail, “and the remaining sentence will be probated as long as Danny Burkett follows

this order.” The trial court awarded Favors and Miller $1,100 “as damages” and

$11,426.78 in “attorney fees”, “all to bear interest of 5% per annum until paid.” The

                                          2
trial court ordered Burkett to appear at the Liberty County Jail on Friday, September

3, 2021, to begin his sentence. The trial court’s order provided that the remaining

521 days “will be probated” as long as Danny Burkett complies with the order as

follows:

             The parties announced on record that they agreed to the
      following:
             1. The parties agree that Deana Miller, Jessie Favors, and Danny
      Burkett will close and lock the gate with a chain and lock each time
      they go through whether entering or leaving the property.
             2. Danny Burkett will be responsible for supplying his guest with
      a key to unlock and lock the gate.
             3. Danny Burkett will be responsible for each of his guest that
      enter or leave through the gate for closing and locking the gate.
             “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
      DECREED that the Plaintiff[s’] Motion to Enter Rule 11 Agreement is
      hereby GRANTED.
             SIGNED on October 13, 2020.
             IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that gates shall be placed on each
      end of the non-exclusive easement and that the gates will be closed each
      time after Danny Burkett enters or leaves the easement.”

      In August 2022, the trial court held a hearing on a Motion to Enforce and

Request for Contempt. The trial court found that Burkett continued to violate the

terms and conditions of the September 2021 contempt judgment, ordered that

Burkett be confined in the Liberty County Jail for one day for each of the violations

31-180, which totals 150 days in county jail and provided the time would be served

by spending 75 consecutive weekends in jail. The trial court ordered the sentence

to begin on September 2, 2022, and end when Burkett “has served 150 total days for

violations 31-180. The court shall continue to probate violations 181-551.”
                                         3
      On April 4, 2023, Favors and Miller filed a Motion for Revocation of Probated

Sentence. They alleged Burkett “failed to complete the probated jail sentence[,]”

having served only 14 days, and asked that Burkett be held in contempt for each

separate violation for failing to appear at the Liberty County Jail on 20 different

weekends. In addition, they asked the trial court to revoke the probated sentence and

order Burkett to serve the remaining 537 days in the Liberty County Jail.

                                      Analysis

      In his mandamus petition, Burkett contends the trial court abused its discretion

in September 2021: (1) when it sentenced Burkett to 551 days in jail without

affording Burkett the right to a jury trial; (2) when it awarded Favors and Miller

damages, attorneys fees and interest in the contempt order; and (3) when it ordered

an infinite probation period. Burkett argues he has no adequate remedy at law

because contempt orders are not appealable.

      Favors and Miller argue habeas corpus provides the exclusive method to

challenge a contempt judgment. Generally, a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the

only method for attacking an order of contempt. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 370

(Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). However, “[c]ontempt orders that do not involve

confinement cannot be reviewed by writ of habeas corpus, and the only possible

relief is a writ of mandamus.” In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig.

proceeding).

                                          4
      This case lies within a gray area of the type of cases reviewable by mandamus.

A habeas applicant must present proof of confinement. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.3(k)(1)(D). Burkett cannot produce a certificate of confinement to support a

habeas petition because he is not in custody. The mandamus record does not include

an outstanding capias and Burkett is not presently subject to a commitment order

because the trial court ordered Burkett to be released from jail. A motion to revoke

probation has been filed, however, placing Burkett at risk of an imminent loss of

liberty. A court may exercise mandamus jurisdiction when the relator is at liberty

under a probation order but is not presently subject to a tangible restraint of liberty.

See In re Johnston, No. 07-22-00177-CV, 2022 WL 17821583, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo Dec. 20, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Based on this record, we

reject Favor’s and Miller’s argument that Burkett may only complain about the trial

court’s order by filing a request for habeas relief.

      Here, Burkett challenges the validity of a contempt order signed in September

2021. Given the substantial amount of time that has elapsed since the trial court

signed the order Burkett challenges, we must determine whether we should

summarily deny the mandamus petition under the doctrine of laches. See Rivercenter

Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding).

      A trial court’s contempt power does not depend on statutory authority, as trial

courts have an inherent power to hold a party in contempt as an essential element of

                                           5
exercising their judicial independence and authority. Ex parte Browne, 543 S.W.2d

82, 86 (Tex. 1976). “Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is

largely controlled by equitable principles.” Id. A court may deny mandamus relief

where the record reveals no justification for the relator’s delay in bringing a

mandamus petition. Id. However, courts generally decline to apply equitable

doctrines such as laches when the mandamus petition challenges a void order. In re

Valliance Bank, 422 S.W.3d 722, 728 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, orig.

proceeding). Accordingly, we will consider whether the September 2021 contempt

order is void, as Burkett contends.

      The trial court sentenced Burkett to 551 days in jail, even though the trial court

then probated Burkett’s sentence. The sentence the trial court assessed exceeds the

maximum permissible sentence available for contempt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.

§ 21.002(b) (“The punishment for contempt of a court other than a justice court or

municipal court is a fine of not more than $500 or confinement in the county jail for

not more than six months, or both such a fine and confinement in jail.”).

      A charge for which confinement may exceed six months is a serious charge

of criminal contempt on which the alleged contemnor has a constitutional right to a

jury trial. Ex parte Sproull, 815 S.W.2d 250, 250 (Tex.1991) (orig. proceeding).

When the contemnor is sentenced to confinement for no more than six months for

each of several acts, the punishment is serious if the sentences must be served

                                          6
consecutively and add up to more than six months. In re Hammond, 155 S.W.3d

222, 226 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, orig. proceeding). A contempt order is void if

it is beyond the power of the court to enter it, or if it deprives the relator of liberty

without due process of law. In re Levingston, 996 S.W.2d 936, 937-38 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). The appellate court will not presume

that the contemnor waived his right to a jury trial from a silent record. Sproull, 815

S.W.2d at 250. Here, the mandamus record does not show that the trial court

informed Burkett of his right to a jury trial or that Burkett affirmatively waived that

right. Burkett neither received a jury trial nor affirmatively waived that right.

Consequently, we conclude the trial court’s September 2021 order is void.

      Favors and Miller argue the 551-day sentence is permissible under section

21.002(h)(2) of the Government Code, which provides that a person may not be

confined for contempt of court longer than the lesser of 18 months or the period from

the date the person complies with the court order that was the basis of the finding of

civil contempt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann § 21.002(h)(2). However, the trial court’s

contempt judgment orders Burkett confined for a definite period for violating the

terms of a permanent injunction. See In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d at 365 (civil contempt

is remedial and coercive in nature and the contemnor carries the keys to the jail cell,

while criminal contempt is punitive in nature and the contemnor is being punished

for some completed act which affronted the dignity and authority of the court). We

                                           7
conclude the September 2021 order is a judgment of criminal contempt, not civil

contempt.

      “An appellate court should issue a writ of mandamus only if the contempt

judgment is void, and not if it is merely voidable.” In re Johnston, 2022 WL

17821583, at *2. A contempt judgment is void if it is beyond power of the court or

violates due process. In re Office of the Att’y Gen., 422 S.W.3d 623, 628 (Tex. 2013)

(orig. proceeding). “Punishment assessed for criminal contempt beyond 180 days is

considered ‘serious’ and may not be assessed unless there was a jury trial or a jury

waiver.” In re Baker, 99 S.W.3d 230, 232 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003, orig.

proceeding). A contempt order that violates the contemnor’s constitutional right to

trial by jury is void. Ex parte Casillas, 25 S.W.3d 296, 299 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2000, orig. proceeding).

                                     Conclusion

      We conclude the trial court clearly abused its discretion by signing a void

order and that the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. We conditionally

grant mandamus relief. We are confident that the trial court will vacate its September

2, 2021 Order on Fifth Amended Motion for Enforcement and Contempt and its

                                          8
August 31, 2022 Order of Revocation and Sentence.1 The writ of mandamus shall

issue only if the trial court fails to comply.

      PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

                                                        PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 15, 2023
Opinion Delivered August 24, 2023

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

      1
        We caution all parties that the permanent injunction is still in force and
remind the parties that any violations of the permanent injunction may be enforced
through contempt proceedings in the trial court that comply with due process.
                                          9