; Rogers v. State, No. 09-15-00270-CR, 2017 WL 2698038, at *3 (Tex. App.- Beaumont June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
Under the Texas Family Code, "[a] court shall render a protective order as provided by [s]ection 85.001(b) if the court finds that family violence has occurred and is likely to occur in the future." See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 81.001, 85.001(b), 85.022; see also Rogers v. State, No. 09-15-00270-CV, 2017 WL 2698038, at *2 (Tex. App.-Beaumont June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
As our sister court has observed, several Texas appellate courts "have addressed in unpublished decisions collateral attacks in criminal appeals regarding prior civil judgments and have applied the traditional collateral attack analysis applicable to civil judgments." See Rogers v. State, No. 09-15-00270-CR, 2017 WL 2698038, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (collecting cases).
Nor could he collaterally attack these orders in this appeal. See Poteet v. State, 957 S.W.2d 165, 167 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.) (overruling appellant's "impermissibl[e] attempt[] to collaterally attack the protective order after he has violated it"); see also Rogers v. State, No. 09-15-00270-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5684, at *8 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that appellant "cannot collaterally attack the validity of the protective order on an appeal for his conviction for violating it"); Perez v. State, No. 08-15-00253-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 4368, at *8-12 (Tex. App.—El Paso May 11, 2017, pet. ref'd) (op., not designated for publication) (concluding that if protective order was improperly approved by trial court, "the error would make the order voidable, and not void"). As noted, the jury subsequently found Hoopes guilty of violating the protective order as alleged and assessed punishment at 1,265 days' imprisonment.