Court Opinion

ID: 9659773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:54:27.957893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:12.339253
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that the orders in this case are not clear as to whether the court intended relator to serve six months in jail, and thereafter to be released on certain conditions, combining punishment for criminal as well as civil contempt, or whether the six month sentence was to be shortened on satisfaction of the condition contained in the punishment order, creating civil contempt only.
I do not agree, however, with the majority’s disposition of the matter in construing the judgment of the court in favor of relator. I am unaware of any authority that allows a reviewing court to “construe” conflicting language in an enforcement order in favor of the contemnor.
I would find the order void for lack of specificity as to what punishment the court intended to impose on relator. See Ex parte Hernandez, 726 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1987, orig. proceeding) (commitment order void because it did not inform sheriff how long to confine the contemnor).