Court Opinion

ID: 9394403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 11:07:28.215194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:59.812306
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued May 11, 2023

                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                         First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                             NO. 01-21-00277-CV
                           ———————————
                      GYANENDRA PATRA, Appellant
                                       V.
         CLARE SCHOENE AND ADAM E. HAMPTON, Appellees

                   On Appeal from the 400th District Court
                          Fort Bend County, Texas
                    Trial Court Case No. 20-DCV-271333

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellees Clare Schoene and Adam E. Hampton obtained an agreed

injunction against appellant Gyanendra Patra that prevented him from contacting

Schoene and Hampton and from coming with a certain distance of them, their house,
and Schoene’s place of employment. Patra allegedly violated the agreed injunction,

and Schoene and Hampton sought to hold him in criminal contempt. After an

evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Patra in contempt, ordered him to spend 75

days confined in the Fort Bend County Jail, and ordered him to undergo a

psychological evaluation.

      In three issues, Patra contends that (1) the evidence in the record is factually

insufficient to support the trial court’s contempt order; (2) the trial court abused its

discretion by denying Patra’s pretrial motions and special exceptions; and (3) the

trial court abused its discretion by assessing Patra’s punishment for contempt at 75

days’ confinement.

      We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                     Background

      Schoene is a Project/Engineer Manager at Schlumberger, and part of her job

description includes hiring personnel for the projects that she oversees. In March

2019, Schoene hired Patra. Their working relationship quickly deteriorated as Patra

began making inappropriate comments concerning the pursuit of a romantic

relationship with Schoene and engaging in other behaviors that Schoene found

harassing and unwelcome.

      Schoene reported Patra’s behavior to Schlumberger’s Human Resources

Department. After an investigation, Schlumberger terminated Patra’s employment

                                           2
in September 2019. Patra, however, continued sending Schoene harassing emails,

text messages, and voicemails. Schoene also saw Patra while she was at a restaurant

with her husband, Hampton, and while she was at a park with her minor children.

Schoene believed that Patra had been following her.

      In February 2020, Schoene and Hampton filed suit against Patra and asserted

causes of action for stalking, intentional infliction of emotional distress, private

nuisance, and tortious interference with business relations. Schoene and Hampton

also sought injunctive relief. They requested a temporary restraining order, a

temporary injunction, and a permanent injunction that, among other things, enjoined

Patra from communicating with them or coming within 500 feet of Schoene and

Hampton, their home, and Schoene’s place of employment. The trial court granted

a temporary restraining order and notified Patra of the date the court would hear

Schoene’s application for a temporary injunction.

      On March 6, 2020, the trial court signed an Agreed Final Judgment and

Injunction (“Agreed Injunction”). The Agreed Injunction prohibited Patra from

contacting or communicating with Schoene, Hampton, and several named

individuals who worked at Schlumberger with Schoene. It also prohibited Patra from

coming within 500 feet of Schoene and Hampton, their home, and Schoene’s place

of employment. The Agreed Injunction stated that it would expire three years after

                                         3
the date of the order “should [Patra] comply with the terms and conditions of this

Order.”

      Three months later, in June 2020, Schoene and Hampton moved for a show

cause hearing. They alleged the following violations of the Agreed Injunction:

      •      On April 20, 2020, Patra contacted one of Schoene’s co-workers.
      •      On May 28, 2020, while Schoene was walking outside with her
             children, she saw Patra sitting in a car at an intersection less than 500
             feet from her home.
      •      Later that night, Patra contacted Schoene by text message and sent her
             a link to a video of a romantic song.
      •      On June 6, 2020, Patra viewed Schoene’s LinkedIn profile and, after
             she blocked him from viewing her profile, he sent her an email.
      •      On June 18, 2020, Hampton saw a car registered to Patra’s wife parked
             within 500 feet from his home.

Schoene and Hampton requested that the trial court hold Patra in criminal contempt

for these alleged violations of the Agreed Injunction.

      In July 2020, the trial court held a hearing on whether Patra violated the

Agreed Injunction and whether he should be held in contempt. After the hearing, the

court signed an order finding that Patra had violated the Agreed Injunction in seven

ways and that Patra had failed to show good cause for the violations (“the First

Contempt Order”). The court ordered that Patra be held in contempt. The court

ordered Patra to “be placed into confinement for the term of forty-five (45) days in

                                          4
the Fort Bend County Jail.” The court further ordered Patra to turn himself into the

Fort Bend County Jail on July 20, 2020.

      Patra challenged the First Contempt Order in an original habeas corpus

proceeding in this Court. See In re Patra, No. 01-20-00651-CV, 2020 WL 7502495

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 22, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). Patra argued

that the First Contempt Order was void because the trial court forced him to be sworn

and called as a witness in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-

incrimination. Id. at *2. He further argued that by requiring him to show good cause

for his alleged violations of the Agreed Injunction, the trial court improperly shifted

the burden of proof to him on the element of whether he willfully intended to violate

the Agreed Injunction. Id. at *3. A panel of this Court overruled both arguments. See

id. at *2–3. We noted that Patra did not challenge the trial court’s finding that he had

violated the Agreed Injunction. Id. at *3.

      Patra also argued that the First Contempt Order violated his due process rights

because the commitment portion of the order did not direct the Fort Bend County

Sheriff to detain him. Id. at *3–4. We agreed with Patra, concluding that because the

First Contempt Order did not “contain a directive to the sheriff to take Patra into

custody” and instead “direct[ed] Patra to turn himself into the county jail,” the order

“cannot serve as a commitment order.” Id. at *4. “[W]ithout an order of commitment,

Patra is not validly confined.” Id. We granted Patra’s application for a writ of habeas

                                             5
corpus, vacated the trial court’s contempt and commitment order, and ordered Patra

discharged from custody. Id. at *1, 5.

      Shortly after our opinion issued, in January 2021, Schoene and Hampton again

filed a motion for a show cause hearing. They alleged the same violations of the

Agreed Injunction that led to the trial court entering the First Contempt Order. They

also alleged, in this motion and in two supplemental motions, three new violations

of the Agreed Injunction:

      •      On January 5, 2021, Hampton, while out with his children, saw Patra’s
             vehicle parked within 500 feet of his and Schoene’s house.
      •      On January 14, 2021, Schoene, Hampton, and their children were in
             their car waiting to turn into their driveway when Hampton saw Patra
             drive past in his vehicle.
      •      On February 7, 2021, Hampton and one of his children had just left
             their house in their car when Hampton saw Patra driving his vehicle.
             Patra sped away and nearly hit one of Hampton’s neighbors, who was
             waiting to turn into his driveway.

In these motions, Schoene and Hampton again requested that the trial court hold

Patra in criminal contempt.

      Patra moved for a partial dismissal of the contempt proceedings against him

based on the prohibition against double jeopardy. Specifically, Patra requested

dismissal of the allegations that had led to the First Contempt Order. Patra argued

that jeopardy had attached to those allegations when the trial court held a show cause

hearing in July 2020, but this Court ultimately overturned the trial court’s criminal

                                          6
contempt findings based on those allegations. Patra argued that because “double

jeopardy had already attached, Plaintiffs are not allowed to proceed with those same

allegations herein a second time.”

      The trial court held a show cause hearing in May 2021. Before the court heard

testimony, the court denied Patra’s motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy.

Several witnesses then testified, including Schoene, Hampton, Patra, Hampton’s

neighbor, and a private investigator.

      After the hearing, the trial court signed an order holding Patra in contempt

(“Second Contempt Order”). The court found that Patra violated the Agreed

Injunction in eight ways: (1)–(2) he violated the distance requirements by appearing

within 500 feet of Schoene’s home and person on May 28, 2020; (3) he violated the

no-contact requirement by sending Schoene a text message on May 28, 2020; (4) he

violated the no-contact requirement by sending Schoene an email on June 6, 2020;

(5)–(6) he violated the distance requirements by appearing within 500 feet of

Schoene’s home and Hampton’s person on June 18, 2020; (7) he violated the

distance requirements by appearing within 500 feet of Schoene, Hampton, and their

home on January 14, 2021; and (8) he violated the distance requirements by

appearing within 500 feet of Schoene, Hampton, and their home on February 7,

2021. The court further found that Patra had failed to show good cause for any of

the violations.

                                         7
      The trial court ordered that Patra be confined in the Fort Bend County Jail for

75 days. The court also signed an order of commitment. The court further ordered

that Patra undergo a psychological evaluation.

      Patra filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the Second Contempt Order,

the commitment order, and the order for a psychological evaluation.1

                               Appellate Jurisdiction

      As an initial matter, we must address our appellate jurisdiction. Schoene and

Hampton argue that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Patra attempts to

appeal from a criminal contempt order, and such orders are reviewable only via a

writ of habeas corpus. We agree.

A.    Standard of Review

      Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a

case. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993).

Subject-matter jurisdiction is not presumed and cannot be waived by the parties. Id.

at 445. Likewise, appellate jurisdiction is never presumed. Jack M. Sanders Fam.

Ltd. P’ship v. Roger T. Fridholm Revocable, Living Tr., 434 S.W.3d 236, 240 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (quoting Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of

1
      The trial court granted Patra’s request for an appeal bond. The court required Patra
      to post bond in the amount of $200; required Patra to wear an ankle monitor;
      prohibited Patra from contacting Schoene or Hampton or going within 500 feet of
      their home or offices; imposed a 7 p.m. weekday curfew on Patra; and imposed
      home confinement on Patra for the weekends.
                                           8
McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.)). Unless

the record affirmatively demonstrates that we have appellate jurisdiction over a case,

we must dismiss the appeal. Id. (quoting Brashear, 302 S.W.3d at 546). We are

therefore obligated to determine our jurisdiction when either the parties or the

circumstances of the appeal call it into question. Id.

B.    Appellate Jurisdiction Over Criminal Contempt Orders

      A contempt order can be either civil or criminal. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360,

365 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). The distinction between civil and criminal

contempt does not depend on whether the underlying litigation is civil or criminal;

instead, the key is the nature of the punishment imposed by the court. Id. Civil

contempt is “remedial and coercive in nature,” and the contemnor’s confinement “is

conditioned on obedience with the court’s order.” Id. (quoting Ex parte Werblud,

536 S.W.2d 542, 545 (Tex. 1976) (orig. proceeding)); In re Bannwart, 439 S.W.3d

417, 421 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding) (stating that

purpose of civil contempt is to coerce contemnor to comply with order of court).

Criminal contempt, by contrast, “is punitive in nature,” and the contemnor’s

confinement is punishment “for some completed act which affronted the dignity and

authority of the court.” In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d at 365 (quoting Ex parte Werblud,

536 S.W.2d at 545); Luttrell v. El Paso Cnty., 555 S.W.3d 812, 828–29 (Tex. App.—

El Paso 2018, no pet.).

                                           9
      Contempt orders are not reviewable by appeal, even if they are appealed along

with a judgment that is appealable. In re Roisman, 651 S.W.3d 419, 433 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, orig. proceeding); Cline v. Cline, 557 S.W.3d 810,

812 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.). Instead, contempt orders are

reviewable only by petition for writ of mandamus or habeas corpus. In re Janson,

614 S.W.3d 724, 727 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Roisman,

651 S.W.3d at 433. The contempt judgment may be challenged by petition for writ

of habeas corpus if the contemnor is confined, or by petition for writ of mandamus

if no confinement is involved. In re Off. of Att’y Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 916

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); In re Janson, 614 S.W.3d at 727 (“When

the contemnor is not jailed, the proper vehicle to challenge a contempt order is a writ

of mandamus . . . .”).

      In the Second Contempt Order, the trial court found that Patra violated the

Agreed Injunction in eight ways and ordered Patra confined in the Fort Bend County

Jail for 75 days. Because the Second Contempt Order ordered Patra to be confined,2

2
      Although the trial court granted Patra’s request for a bond pending this appeal, the
      court imposed additional conditions on Patra: he was required to wear an ankle
      monitor, he had a 7 p.m. curfew on weeknights, and he was placed under home
      confinement on weekends. These are restraints on Patra’s liberty. We conclude that
      Patra is “confined,” and therefore the appropriate avenue for challenging the Second
      Contempt Order is via a petition for writ of habeas corpus, not a petition for writ of
      mandamus. See Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243, 244 (Tex. 1985) (noting that
      contemnor’s liberty was restrained even though contemnor was out on bond because
      “his bond could be revoked at any time, resulting in his incarceration”); see also In
      re Roisman, 651 S.W.3d 419, 434 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, orig.
                                            10
the proper vehicle to challenge this order is by petition for writ of habeas corpus. See

In re Janson, 614 S.W.3d at 727; In re Off. of Att’y Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d at 916.

Patra, however, did not invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction by filing a petition

for writ of habeas corpus. Instead, he filed a direct appeal of the Second Contempt

Order. We conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the Second

Contempt Order by direct appeal.3

      proceeding) (noting that contempt order was challengeable by writ of mandamus
      when trial court suspended contemnor’s jail commitment conditioned on subsequent
      payment of child support arrearages and attorney’s fees); In re Honermann-
      Garinger, No. 02-10-00361-CV, 2010 WL 4644464, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
      Nov. 17, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (concluding that contempt order did
      not confine or restrain contemnor because court suspended contemnor’s jail
      commitment and ordered her to pay attorney’s fees and comply with court order).
3
      This Court has previously held that, “in an appropriate case,” we may treat an appeal
      as an original proceeding, and an appellant who specifically requests that his appeal
      be treated as an original proceeding invokes our original jurisdiction. See Jones v.
      Brelsford, 390 S.W.3d 486, 497 n.7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.)
      (declining to treat appeal as petition for writ of mandamus when appellant did not
      request—either in original brief or in response to motion for rehearing—that issue
      be construed as request for mandamus relief if Court determines that issue is outside
      scope of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction); In re D & KW Fam., L.P., No. 01-11-
      00276-CV, 2012 WL 3252683, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 9, 2012,
      orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (construing appeal as petition for writ of mandamus
      when appellant specifically requested mandamus relief and “submitted a document
      in the form of a petition for writ of mandamus”). Here, although Schoene and
      Hampton raised the jurisdictional defect in their appellee’s brief, Patra has not
      requested that we construe this appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. We
      therefore decline to do so.
                                           11
                                   Conclusion

      We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

                                        12