Court Opinion

ID: 9761424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:42:38.381152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:23.673403
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
It is to be remembered that on June 15, 1981 the district court sentenced the relator to serve three consecutive 180 day sentences. Two of these sentences arose as a result of a hearing held on November 3, 1980 at which the relator was held in contempt on two separate counts. These two sentences were probated on November 25, 1980. The probation of these two sentences was revoked in the contempt judgment dated June 15, 1981. The third sentence was ordered for the first time on June 15, 1981.
On original submission the relator attacked the district court’s revocation of probation in regard to the second count of contempt found in the order dated November 3,1980 (failure to pay through the child support office) and the third sentence which was originally ordered on June 15, 1981. We sustained his assertions made on original submission; nevertheless a count remained by which we held him properly confined.
It is in his motion for rehearing that the relator, for the first time, attacks the revocation of probation in regard to the first count of contempt found on November 3, 1980 (failure to make ordered child support payments). Despite this late attack we deem it appropriate for our consideration. Were it presented by a new petition for writ of habeas corpus — and relator would be privileged to do this — we believe it would be appropriate and, if appropriate at such time, surely it is appropriate on the motion for rehearing.
In particular, the relator points to the motion for contempt show cause hearing filed September 22,1980 which alleged that the relator was in arrears in the amount of $3,000.00 through September 1, 1980. The relator then points to the November 3 contempt judgment rendered in response to the September 22 motion, which held him in contempt for arrearages in the amount of $3,300.00 through November 3, 1980. It is apparent that the relator was not notified that he would be called upon to answer for his alleged failure to make the child support payments due in October and November; therefore, he cannot be held in contempt for failure to make these payments. Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.1979).
Inasmuch as the district court fixed a single sentence for the aggregate of the relator’s monthly delinquencies through November 3, 1980, the entire portion of the November 3 judgment relating to the first count of contempt is void. Ex parte Brown, 574 S.W.2d 618, 621 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1978, original proceeding).
Having ultimately determined that the June 15, 1981 contempt judgment ordering that the relator be confined to jail is void in all its particulars, we order that the relator be discharged.