In re Cisneros, 487 S.W.3d 237

Background

Alma Frayre sued Hannah and Harold Lee in El Paso County; Begum Law Group (lead counsel Alexander Begum and Mario Alonzo Cisneros) represented Frayre with local counsel Eduardo Cadena retained.
Trial court scheduled a June 25, 2015 status/scheduling conference and ordered counsel to appear or enter a docket control order; Begum attorneys did not appear and no docket control order was filed.
Court set a show-cause hearing for June 29, 2015 requiring counsel to appear in person unless local counsel attended; Cadena attended but Begum and Cisneros did not.
On June 29, 2015 the trial court issued a bench warrant (capias) for Cisneros for failing to appear, setting bond at $2,500; no written contempt order had been entered.
Cisneros filed a mandamus petition (alternatively habeas) and emergency relief; the appellate court stayed the warrant and considered whether mandamus was appropriate to challenge issuance of the bench warrant.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus or habeas cures reviewability of the bench warrant	Cisneros: bench warrant reviewable by mandamus because he was not jailed and no contempt order entered	Respondent: (implicit) bench warrant is part of contempt process possibly requiring habeas if confinement occurred	Mandamus is proper because no written contempt order and relator not in custody
Whether the court abused discretion by issuing warrant without due process notice	Cisneros: warrant void for lack of constitutionally sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard for criminal contempt	Respondent: court had authority to summon or punish for failure to appear; attendance requirement was clear	Court held issuance was an abuse: notice insufficient—order didn’t allege contempt or provide personal, specific notice of allegations
Whether contempt was direct (summary) or constructive (requires process)	Cisneros: no exigency; this was constructive criminal contempt requiring notice/hearing	Respondent: (implicit) could treat failure to appear as punishable; may justify summary action	Court: no exigent circumstances shown; process required; this was criminal contempt and summary punishment was improper
Whether bench warrant (capias) could be issued for failure to appear absent proper notice	Cisneros: capias invalid because underlying contempt hearing lacked constitutionally sufficient notice	Respondent: capias appropriate to bring alleged contemnor when he fails to appear	Court: capias/warrant is void here because notice requirement was not met

Key Cases Cited

In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1999) (contempt orders are not appealable)
Ex parte Gray, 649 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (procedures for reviewing contempt)
Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962 (Tex. 1995) (habeas review when contemnor confined or released on bond)
In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus standards)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard and extraordinary relief)
In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2006) (abuse of discretion definition)
In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (distinguishing direct and constructive contempt and required process)
Ex parte Knable, 818 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (summary punishment exceptions and exigency requirement)
Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. 1976) (civil vs. criminal contempt distinction)
Ex parte Johnson, 654 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1983) (use of capias/writ of attachment when alleged contemnor fails to appear)
Ex parte Adell, 769 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. 1989) (notice requirements for criminal contempt; contempt order void without adequate notice)
Ex parte Vetterick, 744 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1988) (notice and process in contempt proceedings)
In re Rowe, 113 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (procedural protections in contempt cases)

Conditionally granted mandamus relief: the appellate court ordered the trial judge to withdraw the bench warrant or the writ will issue.