in Re: Jayme Lynn Cantu

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 2, 2015·No. 05-15-01186-CV·Published

Opinion

Denied and Opinion Filed October 2, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-01186-CV

IN RE JAYME LYNN CANTU, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 6 Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-03218-2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Evans

Before the Court is relator Jayme Lynn Cantu’s petition for writ of habeas corpus in

which she seeks discharge from confinement. The trial court found relator guilty of both direct and constructive contempt. It ordered her confined for sixty days for constructive contempt and for one hundred twenty days for constructive contempt with the sentences to be served consecutively.

A habeas corpus proceeding is a collateral attack on a judgment of contempt. In re Johnson, 337 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, orig. proceeding). A petition for writ of habeas corpus does not inquire into the guilt or innocence of the relator, but only determines if the order of contempt was void. Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex. 1979) (orig. proceeding). A contempt order is void if it is beyond the power of the court to render it or if it deprives the relator of liberty without due process of law. Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Tex. 1980) (orig. proceeding).

Having reviewed the record, we conclude relator has not established that she is entitled to the relief requested. We deny the petition.

/David W. Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE

151186F.P05

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in Re: Jayme Lynn Cantu, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

in Re: Jayme Lynn Cantu (in Re: Jayme Lynn Cantu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Gordon
584 S.W.2d 686 (Texas Supreme Court, 1979)
Ex Parte Barnett
600 S.W.2d 252 (Texas Supreme Court, 1980)
In Re Johnson
337 S.W.3d 486 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)