Juan Miguel Mata v. Maria Elena Mata
04-15-00366-CV
Tex. App.Aug 28, 2015Background
- Appellant Juan Miguel Mata (incarcerated, pro se) seeks to overturn Protective Order No. 2714 issued in Dimmit County after an application by Maria Elena Mata. The order is labeled "agreed" and names the applicant and three children as protected individuals.
- Appellant contends the order violates Texas Family Code Title 4 because the trial court either found no family violence in its written findings or otherwise failed to make required statutory findings supported by evidence.
- Appellant alleges no law-enforcement reports or records were presented to support the application as required by statute and that the County Attorney did not introduce required evidence under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 5.05.
- Appellant asserts lack of proper service on him for the protective-order application/extension and claims the trial judge (Hon. Francisco G. Ponce) acted with bias and failed to rule on multiple post-order motions (Motion to Modify/Amend, Motion to Object, Motion to Examine Evidence, Motion to Quash, Motion to Appeal).
- Appellant filed a writ of mandamus in the Fourth Court of Appeals (No. 04-15-00214-CV) and concurrently appealed the protective order to the Fourth Court of Appeals (No. 04-15-00366-CV), arguing the order is final and appealable and requesting the order be voided, quashed, or modified to exclude his children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mata) | Defendant's Argument (Appellee / County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over nonresident applicant | Appellee is nonresident (Idaho); attorney invoked jurisdiction improperly under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. §16.064 | County maintained court had Title 4 family-court jurisdiction and treated proceedings as properly before the court | Trial court entered Protective Order No. 2714 asserting jurisdiction; appellant challenges jurisdiction on appeal |
| Sufficiency of evidence for protective order | No law‑enforcement reports/records or other evidence were presented to prove family violence; findings allegedly contradict order | County Attorney presented the application and the court signed an (agreed) protective order | Trial court signed the protective order; appellant contends the written findings and evidentiary record do not satisfy statutory requirements |
| Due process / service and rulings on motions | Appellant claims he was not properly served on the application/extension, was discouraged from counsel, and the judge failed to rule on multiple motions (ministerial duty) | Trial court’s docket reflects the order was served in open court and the court treated some matters as resolved (order labeled "agreed") | On the record provided, the trial court entered the protective order and did not issue the rulings appellant sought; appellant seeks appellate review and mandamus relief for the trial judge’s alleged failure to act |
| Finality / appealability of protective order | Protective order is final and appealable (duration not dependent on further action), so Fourth Court of Appeals has jurisdiction | County asserts protective orders are enforceable orders; trial court entered one-year injunction-style order | Appellant relies on cases holding similar protective orders final and appealable; he appeals and requests reversal or modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooke v. Cooke, 65 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (protective order may be final and appealable when it disposes of all parties and issues)
- In re Cummings, 13 S.W.3d 472 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000) (protective order final for appellate purposes when duration does not depend on further action)
- James v. Hubbard, 985 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998) (injunction prohibiting family-member conduct can be appealable final order despite label)
- Pena v. Garza, 61 S.W.3d 529 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001) (standard for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency supporting protective orders)
- Striedel v. Striedel, 15 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000) (due-process right to meaningful hearing and opportunity to present/cross-examine evidence)
- Williams v. Williams, 19 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000) (family code assigns courts, not juries, the factfinding responsibility for family‑violence determinations)
- Vongontard v. Tippit, 137 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (addressing finality and appealability of protective orders)