Court Opinion

ID: 9838361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 06:10:18.298725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:56.534538
License: Public Domain

Writ of Habeas Corpus Granted, Opinion Filed August 29, 2023

                                        In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00506-CV

                       IN RE NOREEN SALEEM, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 469th Judicial District Court
                            Collin County, Texas
           Trial Court Cause Nos. 469-56471-2021, 469-53822-2022

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel
                             Opinion by Justice Nowell
      Relator Noreen Saleem was found in contempt for violating the trial court’s

orders in two proceedings involving the same parties. She was arrested and jailed.

After a week in jail, Saleem filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing she

was being illegally detained in violation of her due-process rights because the trial

court had not signed an order of commitment or contempt judgment. This Court

agreed, ordered her release, and requested a response. Although the trial court

subsequently signed an order of commitment and two contempt orders, these orders

are void, and Saleem is entitled to relief.
                                 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

      Two cases underlie this original proceeding: a suit affecting the parent–child

relationship seeking modification after a divorce (the SAPCR) (trial court cause

number 469-56471-2021) and a protective-order proceeding (trial court cause

number 469-53822-2022). In both cases, real party in interest Ali Gheewala is the

petitioner, and Saleem is the respondent.

      On September 30, 2022, the trial court signed a Final Protective Order in the

protective-order proceeding as well as Temporary Orders in the SAPCR. On

February 8, 2023, Gheewala filed a motion for enforcement of protective order and

temporary injunctions in both cause numbers. Gheewala alleged numerous

violations of the September 30 orders, and he asked the trial court to hold Saleem in

contempt. The trial court’s docket sheets for both cause numbers indicate the court

held a “Protective Order Hearing” on May 9, 2023. Docket entries made on May 17,

2023, state: “Enf Hrg held on 5/9/23. On 5/17/23, Respondent (Noreen Saleem)

found in contempt and sentenced to the Collin County Jail for 90 days to begin

instanter” and “Enf Hrg held on 5/9/23. On 5/17/23, Respondent (Noreen Saleem)

found in contempt and sentenced to 90 days confinement in Collin County Jail to

begin instanter.” Saleem was arrested on May 17, 2023.

      On May 24, 2023, Saleem filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an

emergency motion asking this Court to order her immediate release from the custody

of the Sheriff of Collin County. The following day, this Court granted Saleem’s

                                        –2–
motion for emergency relief and ordered she be released from custody; we also

requested a response to Saleem’s petition. On the same day, May 25, 2023, the trial

court signed an order of commitment containing both case styles; the order states:

                        ORDER OF COMMITMENT
      Noreen Saleem IS ORDERED committed to the Collin County Jail for
      a period of ninety (90) days to begin on May 17, 2023. Such
      commitment is based on contempt findings in each of the above
      referenced cases.

Saleem filed a second motion for emergency relief on May 29, 2023, in which she

asked this Court to vacate the trial court’s May 25 Order of Commitment. The

following day, this Court ordered Saleem again be released from the custody of the

Sheriff of Collin County. On May 31, 2023, the trial court signed an Order Holding

Respondent in Contempt in the SAPCR proceeding for violating several provisions

of the September 30 order; the trial court ordered Saleem confined in the Collin

County jail for 90 days for each violation. Also on May 31, the trial court signed an

order holding Saleem in contempt in the protective-order case; in that order, the trial

court ordered Saleem be confined in the Collin County jail for 90 days for each

violation and also ordered Saleem pay attorney’s fees to Gheewala’s counsel.

                                         –3–
                                          LAW & ANALYSIS

        An original habeas corpus proceeding is a collateral attack on a judgment of

contempt.1 In re Johnson, 337 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, orig.

proceeding). To obtain relief, the relator must show the contempt order is void, not

merely voidable, and she must conclusively show her entitlement to the writ. Id. A

contempt order is void if it is beyond the power of the trial court to render it or if it

deprives the relator of liberty without due process of law. Id.

        To satisfy due-process requirements, both a written judgment of contempt and

a written commitment order are necessary to imprison a person for constructive

contempt of court. See Ex parte Amaya, 748 S.W.2d 224, 224–25 (Tex. 1988) (orig.

proceeding); In re Clark, 393 S.W.3d 563, 564 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, orig.

proceeding). An arrest without a written commitment order made for the purpose of

enforcing a contempt judgment is an illegal restraint from which the prisoner is

entitled to be relieved. Ex parte Amaya, 748 S.W.2d at 225. A docket–sheet notation

is not sufficient to satisfy due-process requirements; a written order of commitment

is required. In re Griffith, 434 S.W.3d 643, 646 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2014, orig. proceeding); see also In re Clark, 393 S.W.3d at 564 (vacating docket

entry and verbal order holding respondent in contempt when trial court failed to

    1
     The Court has not considered and this opinion does not address whether the trial court’s findings that
Saleem failed to comply with its orders and is in contempt are supported by the record. The Court expresses
no view about any other matter that may be pending before the trial court.
                                                   –4–
timely enter written order of contempt and commitment); State v. Shaw, 4 S.W.3d

875, 878 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, no pet.) (docket-sheet entry insufficient).

      A trial court has no authority to verbally order a person confined for

contemptuous acts committed outside the presence of the court and unduly delay

signing a contempt judgment and commitment order. Ex parte Amaya, 748 S.W.2d

at 224. However, a trial court may cause a contemnor to be detained by the sheriff

or other officer for “a short and reasonable” time while the judgment of contempt

and order of commitment are prepared for the judge’s signature. Id.; In re Clark, 393

S.W.3d at 564. The Supreme Court of Texas has held that a three-day delay is not a

“short and reasonable time” in this context. Ex parte Amaya, 748 S.W.2d at 225.

Although Amaya involved civil contempt, courts impose the same requirements in

criminal-contempt cases as well. See, e.g., Ex parte Jordan, 865 S.W.2d 459, 459

(Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (civil and criminal contempt); In re

Hancock, No. 2-06-040-CV, 2006 WL 533400, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar.

6, 2006, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.).

      In the instant case, the record reflects Saleem was arrested and jailed on May

17, 2023, for constructive criminal contempt. The trial court did not sign an order of

commitment until May 25, 2023—one week later. Further, the trial court did not

sign the contempt orders until May 31, 2023. Because the supreme court has held a

delay of only three days in the trial court’s preparation and signing of an order of

commitment and written judgment of contempt is a violation of a relator’s due-

                                         –5–
process rights, we conclude the trial court’s seven-day delay in signing the May 25

Order of Commitment and thirteen-day delay in signing the contempt orders violated

Saleem’s due-process rights. See Ex parte Amaya, 748 S.W.2d at 225; In re Hamill,

No. 14-16-00574-CV, 2016 WL 4705779, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

Sept. 8, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.); In re Clark, 393 S.W.3d at

564. Because Saleem was deprived of liberty without due process of law, the trial

court’s orders are void. See In re Hamill, 2016 WL 4705779, at *2; see also In re

Clark, 393 S.W.3d at 564.

      The May 25 Order of Commitment is void for a second reason. The May 25

Order of Commitment states that “[s]uch commitment is based on contempt findings

in each of the above referenced cases.” However, the trial court did not sign a

contempt order making contempt findings in either case until May 31, 2023. Because

no written judgment or order of contempt existed on May 25, 2023, there was no

finding upon which the order of commitment could be predicated. See Ex parte

Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Tex. 1980) (orig. proceeding).

      In her second emergency motion, Saleem argues the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to enter its May 25 Order of Commitment after we issued our May 25,

2023 Order. When this Court ordered Saleem released on May 25, 2023, our

jurisdiction over Saleem attached to the exclusion of any other court, including the

committing court. See Barnett, 600 S.W.2d at 256–57. The trial court that commits

a relator on an oral judgment may not, some days thereafter, attempt to cure its denial

                                         –6–
of due process by entering a written judgment. See id. at 257. Although we cannot

ascertain on this record whether we issued our May 25, 2023 Order before the trial

court signed its May 25 Order of Commitment, we can ascertain that we issued our

May 25, 2023 Order well before the trial court signed its May 31, 2023 contempt

orders. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court had no jurisdiction to sign these

contempt orders on May 31, 2023. See id. at 256–57.

                                   CONCLUSION

      We conclude Saleem demonstrated she was deprived of her liberty without

due-process of law. The May 25 Order of Commitment and the May 31 Order

Holding Respondent in Contempt for Violating Order in each case are void. See

Barnett, 600 S.W.2d at 256–57; In re Stout, 367 S.W.3d 523, 524–25 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2012, orig. proceeding) (granting habeas corpus relief and vacating order of

commitment signed by trial court two weeks after relator was taken into custody for

contempt).

      We grant Saleem’s request for habeas corpus relief, vacate the May 25 Order

of Commitment signed by Judge Piper McCraw of the 469th Judicial District Court

of Collin County, Texas, in cause numbers 469-56471-2021 and 469-53822-2022,

and vacate each May 31, 2023 Order Holding Respondent in Contempt for Violating

                                       –7–
     Order in cause numbers 469-56471-2021 and 469-53822-2022.

                                     /Erin A. Nowell//
230506f.p05                          ERIN A. NOWELL
                                     JUSTICE

                                   –8–