528 S.W.3d 234
Tex. App.2017Background
- Ronald T. Spriggs, an attorney, represented Marcus Donell Ray in a criminal sexual-assault prosecution and twice moved to withdraw; motions denied.
- Judge Douglas R. Woodburn ordered Spriggs to appear and defend Ray; on May 1 Spriggs announced "not ready."
- Judge Woodburn found Spriggs in contempt, ordered 10 days jail and a $500 fine, and issued a commitment; Spriggs was released on his own recognizance pending reassignment for a guilt determination.
- The administrative region reassigned the contempt determination to Judge David Peeples; Judge Woodburn permitted Spriggs to withdraw and appointed new counsel for Ray.
- Judge Peeples held a contempt hearing, found Spriggs guilty, and sentenced him to seven days in jail beginning August 2; Spriggs filed this original proceeding and sought temporary relief, and the court temporarily stayed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals has original habeas jurisdiction over contempt arising from conduct in a criminal matter | Spriggs sought habeas review of the contempt conviction | The court lacks original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters; such habeas jurisdiction is with the Court of Criminal Appeals | Dismissed Spriggs' habeas petition for want of jurisdiction |
| Whether mandamus is available to overturn the contempt order | Spriggs sought mandamus relief from Judge Woodburn's contempt determination | Mandamus requires (1) clear abuse or violated duty and (2) no adequate legal remedy; appellate habeas jurisdiction for criminal contempt rests with Court of Criminal Appeals | Mandamus denied because Spriggs failed to show lack of an adequate remedy at law |
| Whether this court should substitute for the Court of Criminal Appeals by exercising mandamus when underlying matter is criminal | Spriggs proceeded in this court instead of Court of Criminal Appeals | The Court of Criminal Appeals has primary original habeas jurisdiction in criminal contempts; unlike civil-related contempt cases, this court should not supplant that avenue | Court declined to grant mandamus and indicated the proper habeas forum is the Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Effect of interim release and reassignment on reviewability of contempt | Spriggs relied on release and reassignment to argue procedural defects or need for relief | Reassignment and temporary release do not alter jurisdictional limits or the absence of adequate remedy prerequisite for mandamus here | Stay dissolved; mandamus denied and habeas dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (distinguishes civil-related contempt mandamus/habeas posture and analyzes adequacy of appellate remedies)
- Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994) (orig. proceeding) (court of appeals lacks original habeas jurisdiction in criminal contempt matters)
- Ex parte Lewis, 663 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1983) (orig. proceeding) (statutory habeas jurisdiction in courts of appeals is limited and does not encompass criminal matters)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus issues: relief available only for clear abuse of discretion and absence of adequate remedy by law)
- Collins v. Kegans, 802 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (mandamus will not issue during pendency of contempt proceedings; contempt judgments traditionally attacked by habeas)
- Ex parte Thompson, 273 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Court of Criminal Appeals has original habeas jurisdiction to review contempt orders in criminal cases)
- Ex parte Supercinski, 561 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (original habeas jurisdiction of Court of Criminal Appeals is plenary)