Opinion
No. 05-17-00473-CV
05-09-2017
IN RE LOREN TODD HAYES, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-05-19243
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Fillmore
Before the Court is relator's May 5, 2017 petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he complains of the trial court's March 6, 2017 "order on motion to revoke community supervision," which arose from a December 2, 2013 contempt order relating to relator's child support arrearages. In the March 6, 2017 order, the trial court found that relator had violated the terms and conditions of community supervision by failing to pay court-ordered child support, revoked the community supervision, and ordered relator committed and confined to the Dallas County Jail.
A contempt judgment may be collaterally attacked in an original habeas corpus proceeding. Ex parte Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex. 1967). The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is not to determine the guilt of the contemnor, but only to determine whether he has been unlawfully imprisoned. Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex. 1979). A court will issue a writ of habeas corpus if the order underlying the contempt is void, or if the contempt order itself is void. Ex parte Barlow, 899 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, orig. proceeding). An order is void if it is beyond the power of the court to enter it, or if it deprives the relator of liberty without due process of law. In re Stein, 331 S.W.3d 538, 540 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (citing Ex parte Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.1983) and Ex parte Barlow, 899 S.W.2d at 794). A judgment of contempt imposing a coercive restraint is void if the conditions for purging the contempt are impossible to perform. Ex parte Jones, 602 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1980, orig. proceeding). But the burden is on the relator to establish in the trial court that he cannot perform the act necessary to purge himself. Id.
To obtain habeas relief, the relator must provide proof that he is currently being restrained. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(D); In re Kuster, 363 S.W.3d 287, 293 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, orig. proceeding). The record shows that relator was booked into the Dallas County Jail on March 6, 2017 and was still in custody as of April 18, 2017. But the record includes no proof that relator remains confined or restrained. The petition, therefore, does not provide the Court with the proof of current confinement required by Rule 52 and should, therefore, be denied. See, e.g., In re Miller, No. 05-14-01023-CV, 2014 WL 3882317, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 7, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying petition and holding that website print out from Collin County Sheriff's Department insufficient to provide proof of confinement).
Moreover, in a habeas proceeding, the presumption is that the order or judgment challenged is presumed to be valid. In re Turner, 177 S.W.3d 284, 288 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding). Relator bears the burden of showing that the contempt order is void and must provide an adequate record to establish the invalidity of the order. Id.; In re Coppock, 277 S.W.3d 417, 418-19 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not met that burden here. Relator has not provided this Court with a reporter's record and, without a reporter's record, this Court may not conduct a meaningful review to determine whether relator's due process rights were violated or whether the March 6, 2017 order is otherwise void.
Accordingly, we deny relator's May 5, 2017 petition for writ of habeas corpus.
/Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE
JUSTICE 170473F.P05