Court Opinion

ID: 9634742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:22:10.392536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:09.234435
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In a motion for rehearing, relator argues his right to due process of law was violated because he was not given proper notice of the contempt, was not given the opportunity to retain counsel, and did not have an opportunity to defend himself at a contempt hearing.1 Relator says he never had an attorney “at any point during the evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Show Cause.” Relator also says the court signed its order finding him in contempt of court without holding a contempt hearing. Relator further states:
[T]he district court apparently relied on the show cause hearing of July 21, 2004, at which [relator] was merely testifying as a witness (which he did voluntarily without the necessity of a subpoena), without counsel, and with no knowledge that the judge might place him in jail the very next day.
Contempt of court proceedings may be civil or criminal. See Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542, 545-46 (Tex.1976). See In re Houston, 92 S.W.3d 870, 876 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, orig. proceeding). Criminal contempt is punishment for past conduct. Id. Civil contempt is coercive, and the eontem-nor may obtain his release by complying with the court’s order. Id.
The distinction between civil and criminal contempt impacts the due process analysis. See International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 826-27, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994); see also Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 631-32, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 99 L.Ed.2d 721 (1988). Criminal penalties may not be imposed upon one who has not been afforded the Constitutional protections required of criminal proceedings. See Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 826, 114 S.Ct. 2552. However, civil coercive sanctions designed to compel future compliance may be imposed in a civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. at 827, 114 S.Ct. 2552.
The due process analysis is also impacted by whether the contempt is direct or constructive. Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court. See Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex.1995). Contempt outside the presence of the court is constructive contempt. *272Id.) see also Ex Parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex.1979). Direct contempt that is witnessed by the judge may be summarily punished. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 274, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948). No further proof is required. Id.) see also generally Ex Parte Daniels, 722 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (criminal contempt). However, contempt not personally observed by the judge requires notice and an opportunity to be heard on disputed facts. See Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d at 689-90. Absent adequate notice, a contempt order is a nullity. In re Acceptance Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d 443, 448-49 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, orig. proceeding). Finally, the nature of the sanction is a factor to be considered in determining due process. See generally Ector County Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hopkins, 518 S.W.2d 576, 581 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1974, no writ). Jail is a deprivation of liberty, whether the contempt is civil or criminal, direct or constructive.
This is a civil contempt order designed to coerce relator to comply with the trial court’s order. The contempt is constructive. The hearing at which relator testified was held to resolve a motion to show cause, and to convert the temporary guardianship into a permanent one.2 The record does not reflect relator was represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the testimony, the following exchange occurred between Richard’s counsel, Mays’ counsel, and the trial court:
[Richard’s Counsel]: We would like to ask that [Rose] be found in contempt of court, put in jail, and ask that the property be returned to the temporary guardian.
[[Image here]]
[The Court]: Are there pleadings on file that I can find her in contempt?
[Mays’ Counsel]: I didn’t see it in the file.
[Richard’s Counsel]: I don’t believe that I have asked for a finding of contempt because there was not a prior written order.
[Mays’ Counsel]: No, sir, Your Honor.
[Richard’s Counsel]: It was ordered that she bring the money to the registry of the court, orally.
[The Court]: I just orally asked her to do that. I believe she’s admitted that. Okay. I’m going to find that ... the money, the $24,150 should be deposited in the registry of the district court of Jasper County, Texas. I’m going to order that done by 9:30 in the morning. If the money is not deposited in the registry of the district court of Jasper County, Texas, I find not only Mrs. Mays, but Mr. Johnson, Rev. Johnson in contempt of this court.
[[Image here]]
[Mays’ Counsel]: Your Honor, we understand the position of the Court; however, we’ve not had proper notice of this hearing.
[The Court]: She keeps saying you have. I’ll set the hearing later. Do we understand what’s going to happen in the morning at 9:30?
[[Image here]]
[The Court]: Mrs. Mays, do you understand that you can be in contempt of court; and if you are in contempt of court, it’s very possible you can go to jail until you purge yourself of that *273contempt. Mr. Johnson, did you understand what I said?
[[Image here]]
[The Court]: I’ll see you in the morning at 9:30, and one of you better have that money.
[[Image here]]
[The Court]: Deposit to the registry of the District Clerk of Jasper County, Texas and if it’s not, I want a written order. I’m going to sign that order today. But I’m giving you notice, Mrs. Mays; and I talked to the preacher out there, Brother Johnson. He knows to have it here at 9:30 in the morning. And he knows what’s going to happen in the event it’s not here.
Relator’s explanation for his failure to deliver the cash involves disputed facts concerning out-of-court conduct. He was entitled to reasonable notice of the contempt charge and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. See In re Houston, 92 S.W.3d at 876. Reasonable notice will provide him with an opportunity to consult counsel, present witnesses, or otherwise prepare his defense.
The notice provided to relator, which the record reflects was less than twenty-four hours, was not sufficient. Johnson was a witness at the show cause hearing. He was not the respondent. Considering the inadequacy of the notice provided in this case, the contempt order is a nullity. See In re Acceptance Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d at 448-49. Relator’s first issue on motion for rehearing is sustained. We grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and order the relator Ben “Benji” Johnson released from confinement and from the bond previously ordered.
WRIT GRANTED.

. Rose Mays has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

. In his motion for rehearing, relator says Jimmy Mays is deceased. The parties do not address the effect of the ward's death on this civil contempt proceeding. See Tex Prob. Code Ann. § 745(a)(2) (Vernon Supp.2004).