Court Opinion

ID: 9366892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-29 09:12:44.504425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.774805
License: Public Domain

Order filed January 26, 2023.

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                NO. 14-23-00038-CV

                        IN RE KYLE FRENCH, Relator

                         ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                        WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
                              280th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 2021-83581

                                     ORDER

      On January 20, 2023, relator Kyle French filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P.
52. In the petition, relator asks this court to vacate the October 24, 2022 order
finding him in contempt of court and committing him to county jail. Relator has
not filed a motion for temporary relief, however, he requests the following: “[t]hat
this Court issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding that the Relator be brought
immediately before this Court”; “[t]hat Relator be admitted to bail pending a final
ruling on this Petition”; and “[t]hat the Court order that Relator be released from
custody and restraint.”

      Relator’s petition, appendix, and record are not in compliance with the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Rules of Appellate procedure require a
party, who files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in in a court of appeals, to
include proof that the relator is restrained. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(d)(4), (k)(1)(D);
In re Serrano, 482 S.W.3d 134, 135 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, orig. proceeding).
Although referenced in relator’s petition, neither relator’s appendix nor the record
include a “Sheriff’s Certificate of Custody” demonstrating proof that relator is
currently confined. See In re Huitrado-Soto, No. 05-16-00515-CV, 2016 WL
2353898, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
(holding trial court’s order, which was stamped “IN JAIL,” did not provide proof
of then present confinement required by Rule 52); In re Miller, No. 05-14-001023-
CV, 2014 WL 3882317, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 7, 2014, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.) (holding that website print out that purported to show relator’s
confinement by Collin County Sheriff’s Department did not provide proof required
by Rule 52).

      Additionally, relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and mandamus
record contain unredacted sensitive information regarding relator’s minor child.
See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9(a)(3). The documents have been pulled down from this
Court’s website.    Parties are required to redact all sensitive information in
documents filed in this court unless the inclusion of the sensitive data is
specifically required by a statute, court rule, or administrative regulation. Tex. R.

                                         2
App. P. 9.9(b).     There is no statute, court rule, or administrative regulation
requiring the inclusion of sensitive data.

      Moreover, it does not appear that relator has filed with the petition a
certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for
relief as required by Rule 52.7(a)(1). The petition references material documents
not in the record, including but not limited to the real party in interest’s petition for
enforcement of final protective order and the reporter’s record from the September
21, 2022 hearing on the same.

      Finally, Rule 52.7(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires
the relator to file with the petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any
relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered
into evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the
matter complained.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(2). Relator’s record, which contains
a reporter’s record for the contempt hearing on October 24, 2022, does not include
all of the exhibits from the hearing.

      We ORDER relator to cure the deficiencies identified above within 10 days
of the date of order. By this order, the Court gives relator notice that the failure to
address timely these deficiencies will result in the involuntary dismissal of his
petition for writ of habeas corpus.

                                      PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.

                                             3