Paredes, Miguel Angel, WR-61,939-02

Background

Respondents David R. Dow and Jeffrey R. Newberry filed a motion for rehearing after this Court found them in contempt and suspended Dow from practicing before the Court for one year for allegedly untimely filings in a death‑penalty case (Paredes).
The Court relied on Miscellaneous Rule 11‑003 in imposing sanctions, which lists possible penalties including referral to disciplinary counsel, contempt, removal from Article 11.071 appointment list, restitution, and “any other sanction allowed by law.”
Counsel assert the filings were submitted seven days before the scheduled execution (exclusive of the execution date) and thus timely under the rule and ordinary time‑computing rules; an example in Rule 11‑003, however, suggests an eight‑day requirement, creating an ambiguity.
Counsel argue the Court exceeded its authority by suspending Dow because suspension for professional discipline is within the Supreme Court of Texas/State Bar procedures and formal disciplinary rules require specific processes before suspension.
Counsel contend contempt penalties authorized by statute do not include suspension absent fraudulent, dishonorable conduct or malpractice, and that Rule 215.2 (civil discovery sanctions) is inapplicable here.
Counsel further argue the suspension is disproportionate, interferes with Dow’s federal obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 to represent federal habeas clients, and that lesser sanctions (or referral to disciplinary process) would have sufficed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dow/Newberry)	Defendant's Argument (Court)	Held
Whether the Court exceeded its authority by suspending Dow from practice before it	Suspension is beyond this Court’s authority; attorney discipline and suspension must proceed through the Supreme Court/State Bar disciplinary process	Court imposed suspension as part of sanctions under Misc. R. 11‑003 for contempt/other sanctions	Court suspended Dow for one year (order dated Jan. 14, 2015)
Whether the filings were timely under Misc. R. 11‑003	Filings were made seven days before execution (excluding execution day) and thus timely; ambiguity favors lenient reading	Court found filings untimely and that no good cause excused lateness	Court held filings untimely and denied relief; sanctioned counsel
Whether contempt sanctions may include suspension absent fraud/dishonor/malpractice	Tex. Gov’t Code contempt penalties do not authorize suspension unless contempt involves fraudulent/dishonorable conduct or malpractice; counsel’s conduct was not such	Court relied on Misc. R. 11‑003 and contempt power to impose suspension	Court imposed suspension despite statutory contempt penal limits
Applicability of civil‑sanction authority (e.g., Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.2) and necessity of suspension to protect core functions	Rule 215.2 targets civil discovery misconduct and is inapplicable; counsel’s filings did not interfere with Court’s core functions; suspension is excessive and not the least severe means	Court invoked its sanctioning authority to preserve judicial integrity/core functions under Misc. R. 11‑003	Court suspended Dow though counsel argues no lesser sanction was considered

Key Cases Cited

Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. 1979) (Supreme Court’s supervisory authority over practice of law)
State Bar of Texas v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1994) (Supreme Court’s administrative control over State Bar and regulation of practice)
In re State Bar, 113 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. 2003) (disciplinary‑process principles)
In re Caballero, 441 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. App. 2014) (disciplinary referral/process context)
Mills v. Ghilain, 68 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. App. 2001) (disciplinary proceedings references)
TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions must be no more severe than necessary to serve legitimate purpose)
Kutch v. Del Mar College, 831 S.W.2d 506 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992) (inherent sanctioning power to prevent interference with core judicial functions)
Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State, 802 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (court core functions described)
Cuellar v. State, 70 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (rule of lenity applied to ambiguous penal provisions)
DeLay v. State, 443 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (rule of lenity applies beyond Penal Code)