Court Opinion

ID: 9683144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:23:20.46462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:45.481416
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The majority correctly states that Art. 1911a, V.A.C.S., “has been construed to mean [that the second judge] may also readjudicate punishment assessed by the offended judge.” It cites Ex parte Howell, 488 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), as authority. However, even though the statement is contained in Ex parte Howell, it is pure dictum because in Ex parte Howell, supra, the first punishment that was assessed was not readjudicated at the second hearing. Thus, the question whether the second judge might readjudicate the punishment the first judge had assessed was not before the Court.
Art. 1911a, supra, does not provide, either expressly or implicitly, for a readjudi-cation of punishment. However, by the express terms of the statute, the second judge only readjudicates the “guilt or innocence” of the officer of the court who was held in contempt by the first judge.
In this instance, the first judge, after finding applicant guilty of two separate contempts, assessed only one punishment, namely, 72 hours’ confinement in the county jail and a $500 fine. By the first judge’s order, the punishment assessed did not specify whether the punishment applied to just one or both of the contempts. This does not matter because neither of the con-tempts has been held to be void. Cf. Ex parte Werner, 496 S.W.2d 121, 122-123 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1973), no writ.
In this instance, the second judge readju-dicated the finding that applicant was guilty of both contempts, and then assessed punishment on one contempt at a fine of $150 and on the other at one day confinement in the county jail and a $300 fine. This I find the second judge could not do.
By the provisions of Art. 1911a, supra, the second judge was restricted to readjudi-cating applicant’s guilt and, if he found that applicant was guilty of both con-tempts, could only assess the same punishment the first judge had assessed. He was not permitted to reduce the punishment that the first judge had assessed, namely, 72 hours’ confinement in the county jail and a $500 fine. The second judge’s assessment of punishment is void. The cause should be remanded to the second judge for him to assess the same punishment that the first judge assessed. Because the majority does not do this, I respectfully dissent.