Court Opinion

ID: 2886022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 18:40:46.693917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:40.770298
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-01-0196-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

MAY 8, 2001

______________________________

Ex Parte RONALD SHAW, 

Relator

_________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus of Ronald Shaw.  Shaw seeks relief from an order of the 286th District Court of Hockley County 1) finding him in contempt, 2) sentencing him to sixty days incarceration in the county jail, and 3) assessing court costs and attorney's fees against him.  However, his commitment was suspended “so long as he does not again violate the prior orders of this court and the new orders hereinafter set forth.”

To be entitled to habeas relief, the applicant must show that he is being restrained.  
Tex. R. App. Proc
.
 52.3(j)(1)(D).  
At bar, Shaw does not allege that the trial court has done anything to lift the suspension and impose the sixty day sentence. Nor is there any indication in the record before us that the court required him to post a bond, report to a probation  officer, or otherwise restrict his freedom of movement.  These circumstances, coupled with the authority holding that the mere imposition of a suspended sentence, without more, is insufficient restraint for purpose of habeas corpus, 
Ex parte Hughey
, 932 S.W.2d 308, 310-11 (Tex. App.–Tyler 1996, orig. proceeding); 
Ex parte Sealy
, 870 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tex. App.–Houston [1
st
. Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding), require us to conclude that Shaw is not being restrained.  Consequently, we deny his petition for habeas corpus.  

Brian Quinn

   Justice

Do not publish.