in the Matter of David Christopher Hesse, 01-15-00401-CR

David Christopher Hesse filed a motion for sanctions against Gail Kikawa McConnell in the First Court of Appeals, Houston, alleging false statements in the State’s appellate brief.
The motion centers on alleged misstatements about whether Hesse requested a de novo hearing under § 21.002(d), Tex. Gov’t Code, and about custody and booking facts.
The State’s brief purported that Hesse requested de novo review; the contempt hearing record does not contain the word “de novo.”
Ex parte Pink governs the procedure for contempt hearings and the judge’s initial determination of guilt or innocence, not a de novo hearing.
The record includes a booking photograph and a personal recognizance bond, with disputes over whether Hesse was arrested or merely detained and processed.
Hesse seeks hearing, show-cause, sanctions, and general relief for alleged unethical conduct and candor violations by McConnell.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sanctions are warranted for alleged false statements in the State’s Brief	Hesse argues McConnell knowingly misstated facts to the court.	McConnell contends statements were accurate interpretations or legitimate arguments.	To be determined; issue identified for resolution.
Whether the duty of candor requires repleading or sanctions for misstatements	McConnell violated duty of candor by mischaracterizing facts.	Statement interpretations did not amount to false statements or candor violations.	To be determined; issue identified for resolution.
Whether the hearing record supports a de novo requirement under § 21.002(d)	Matters asserted as de novo were not present in the contempt hearing record.	De novo is not stated in § 21.002(d); proceedings follow Pink framework.	To be determined; issue identified for resolution.
Whether the court has inherent power to sanction bad-faith conduct by counsel in this context	Counsel engaged in conduct interfering with justice and court dignity.	No bad-faith conduct proven; standard for sanctions not satisfied.	To be determined; issue identified for resolution.
Whether the requested relief (sanctions, repleading, or show-cause) is appropriate	Court should strike the State’s Brief and order repleading; impose sanctions.	Relief requested is unwarranted or premature.	To be determined; issue identified for resolution.

Onwuteaka v. Gill, 908 S.W.2d 276 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (inherent power to sanction bad-faith conduct)
Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (inherent power to discipline attorney behavior)
Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. 1979) (principles governing contempt and candor)
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (sanction standards and procedural fairness)
In re Maloney, 949 S.W.2d 385 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1997) (latitude in presenting argument; limits on misstatement)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (Supreme Court 1994) (standards for custody/arrest analysis in detention context)
Ex parte Pink, 645 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (procedure for contempt hearings and initial guilt determination)
Bradt v. West, 892 S.W.2d 56 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (duty of candor; limitations on misstatement)