in Re: Mario Alonzo Cisneros, 08-15-00197-CV

Plaintiff Alma Frayre sued Hannah and Harold Lee; Begum Law Group (Alexander Begum and lead counsel Mario Alonzo Cisneros) represented Frayre with local counsel Eduardo Cadena.
Trial court scheduled a June 25, 2015 status/scheduling conference and later set a June 29, 2015 "show cause" hearing after Begum attorneys did not appear on June 25.
Cadena (local counsel) attended June 29; Begum and Cisneros did not. The court excused Cadena and issued a bench warrant for Cisneros with $2,500 bond for failure to appear.
Cisneros filed a petition for writ of mandamus (alternatively habeas corpus) and emergency relief; the appellate court stayed the bench warrant.
The central legal dispute: whether issuing a bench warrant and initiating criminal contempt proceedings against lead counsel without constitutionally sufficient notice or hearing was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedural vehicle: mandamus or habeas	Bench warrant issued but Cisneros not confined; mandamus is appropriate	Trial court’s action initiates contempt proceedings; habeas appropriate if confined	Mandamus is proper because no written contempt order and relator not confined
Sufficiency of notice for criminal contempt	No personal service or specific show-cause order alleging contempt; lacked notice of charges and time to prepare	Court issued an order setting a show cause hearing and required counsel to appear	Bench warrant void for lack of constitutionally sufficient notice of contempt allegations
Nature of contempt (civil vs criminal)	No underlying order disobeyed; warrant seeks punishment for past failures to appear	Court treated failure to appear as basis for restraint	Court holds this is criminal contempt (punitive), so heightened due process required
Adequacy of alternative remedies	Statutory remedy (Tex. Gov’t Code §21.002(d)) for officers of court insufficient because no contempt order exists and Cisneros must post bond	Trial court’s process and post-bond procedure are adequate	Court finds remedy at law inadequate; mandamus relief warranted and conditionally granted

In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1999) (contempt orders are generally not appealable)
Ex parte Gray, 649 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) (appealability of contempt orders)
Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962 (Tex. 1995) (habeas review when contemnor confined or released on bond)
In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (distinguishing direct and constructive contempt and due process protections)
Ex parte Knable, 818 S.W.2d 811 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (summary punishment for direct contempt limited to exigent circumstances)
Ex parte Adell, 769 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. 1989) (insufficient notice voids contempt order)
Ex parte Johnson, 654 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1983) (use of capias/writ of attachment when contemnor fails to appear)
In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus standard: abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy)