In Re Moreno, 328 S.W.3d 915

Jaime Moreno was held in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a trial court order appointing Delfa Rodriguez as temporary guardian of Josefina Moreno.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on November 23 and appointed Delfa temporary guardian effective at 6:00 p.m. the same day.
The court ordered Jaime and his brother to effect a custody change and transport Josefina to Delfa’s home, aiming for a peaceful exchange with no objections or threats.
A second hearing on November 30 reaffirmed the order and expressed displeasure with Jaime for noncompliance, leading to a 15-day jail sentence for contempt.
Jaime petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing lack of due process, including no notice or evidentiary hearing before contempt findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing without notice and hearing.	Moreno argues there was no personal, written notice or hearing before contempt.	Moreno’s noncompliance with the order justifies contempt and imprisonment under court authority.	Yes; lack of notice/hearing violated due process.

Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257 (Tex. 1995) (defines contempt and its categories)
Ex parte Edgerly, 441 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. 1969) (due process right to notice of each alleged contumacious act)
Ex parte Brister, 801 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (right to notice in contempt proceedings)
Ex parte Herring, 438 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. 1969) (notice must be personally served, not just to counsel)
Ex parte Vetterick, 744 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1988) (notice should be by recognized process, served on contemnor)
Hayes v. Hayes, 920 S.W.2d 344 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1996) (reasonable time before contempt-related hearing)
Ex parte Jackman, 663 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1983) (due process requires notice and opportunity to defend)
In re Acceptance Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2000) (distinguishes direct vs constructive contempt for due process)
In re Smith, 981 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (advance notice of potential punishment in non-serious criminal contempt)
Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974) (serious criminal contempt requires heightened protections)
United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1994) (due process limits on criminal penalties for contempt)
Ex parte Busby, 921 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996) (criminal contempt considerations)