In Re Daniel Flores v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00463-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00463-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE DANIEL FLORES

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1

Relator Daniel Flores filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting that:

(1) he was wrongfully confined for civil contempt, and (2) he was not provided with a

release hearing under Texas Family Code § 157.105. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 157.105.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). An order of contempt may be reviewed through a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

In re Luther, 620 S.W.3d 715, 721 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). A court

will issue a writ of habeas corpus if the order underlying the contempt is void or if the

contempt order itself is void. See id. at 722. The relator bears the burden of showing that

the contempt order is void and not merely voidable. In re B.G.B., 580 S.W.3d 310, 315–

16 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2019, orig. proceeding); In re Munks, 263 S.W.3d 270, 272–73 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, orig. proceeding). A contempt order is void if it deprives

the relator of liberty without due process of law or if it exceeded the power of the court to

issue. In re Office of Atty. Gen., 422 S.W.3d 623, 628 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); In

re Mayorga, 538 S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, orig. proceeding).

The Court requested responses to the petition for writ of habeas corpus from the

real party in interest, Stacy Garza a/k/a Stacy M. Garza, and relator’s appointed counsel,

the Honorable Carolyn M. Gurney; however, these individuals did not file responses to

the petition for writ of mandamus. The respondent advised us that a hearing on Garza’s

motion for contempt against relator was set to be held on October 9, 2025. Accordingly,

we abated this original proceeding and we directed the trial court to proceed with the

scheduled hearing and any related matters.

The trial court has now informed us that at the hearing on October 9, 2025, Flores

admitted that the contempt allegations against him were true, the trial court sentenced

Flores to a suspended sentence, and the trial court released Flores from custody. We

have received and reviewed the reporter’s record of the hearing regarding these events.

Accordingly, we reinstate this original proceeding.

2 Given the foregoing sequence of events, and because Flores has been released

from confinement, we conclude that this petition for writ of habeas corpus has been

rendered moot. See In re Contract Freighters, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Tex. 2022)

(orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162

(Tex. 2012); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig.

proceeding); see also In re Okoli, No. 01-24-00063-CV, 2024 WL 1098221, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 14, 2024, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.)

(concluding that a petition for writ of habeas corpus was moot because the relator was no

longer confined); In re A.M., No. 02-19-00131-CV, 2019 WL 2223218, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth May 23, 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (same). We similarly

conclude that Flores’s motion for emergency temporary relief, which we previously

ordered to be carried with the case, has been rendered moot. Accordingly, we dismiss

this original proceeding and Flores’s motion for emergency temporary relief as moot.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 21st day of October, 2025.