law-habeas-corpus | contempt | sanctions
In a habeas corpus action challenging confinement for contempt, the relator bears the burden of showing
that the contempt order is void. See In re Dupree, 118 S.W.3d 911, 914 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet.
denied). 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. Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Tex. 1980) (orig. proceeding). To be
enforceable by contempt, an order must set out the terms of compliance in clear and unambiguous terms. Ex
parte Brister, 801 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding). Moreover, a person cannot be sentenced
to confinement unless the order unequivocally commands that person to perform a duty or obligation. Ex
parte Padron, 565 S.W.2d 921, 921 (Tex. 1978) (orig. proceeding).
In re Coppock, No. 08-0093 (Tex. 2009)(O'Neill) (contempt in divorce case overturned)
Because a writ of habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for addressing alleged irregularities occurring
during parole proceedings, and because Thompson is essentially challenging the duration of his
incarceration, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant Thompson the relief requested in his original
petition. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Thompson's claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we overrule Thompson's third issue.
09-0354
LAWRENCE EDWARD THOMPSON v. JOSE ALISEDA AND RISSIE OWENS; from Bee County; 13th district
(13-08-00417-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-29-09, pet. denied June 2009)(Tex.App.- Corpus Christi, Jan. 29,
2009, pet. denied June 2009) (prisoner suit, pro se litigant, no jurisdiction over claim, habeas corpus)