In Re Johnny Joseph Chavez III v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-26-00277-CV

IN RE JOHNNY JOSEPH CHAVEZ III

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

July 14, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.

In this original habeas corpus proceeding, the trial court held Relator Johnny

Jospeh Chavez III in contempt for failure to pay child support. Because Relator’s petition

fails to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(b)–(i),

we deny his habeas relief.

Relator advances the following complaints with regard to the contempt procedure

and order: (1) the trial court failed to notify him to his right to counsel upon an indigency

determination; (2) he was not properly noticed and served; (3) the trial court failed to make

ability-to-pay findings; (4) he was denied due process and the trial court refused to

consider evidence; (5) there were procedural violations regarding his affidavit of inability to afford costs under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145; and (6) the judgment identified

only one contempt finding for failure to pay, despite the petition alleging several violations.

However, beyond mere conclusory statements, Relator provides no substantive

analysis of his arguments, citations to controlling case law, or references to the record. 1

Although Relator does provide a few sentences in his argument for his sixth ground, he

still fails to cite any authority that would require a trial court to find and include more than

one act of contempt to support the order here. Failure to include a substantive analysis

and provide citations to relevant authority are grounds for denying relief. See In re Kuhler,

60 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (orig. proceeding) (denying

mandamus relief where relator made mere conclusory claims in his petition); see also In

re Moore, No. 12-04-00229-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 6266, *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler July

14, 2004, no pet.) (orig. proceeding) (denying habeas relief for failing to make a clear and

concise argument with appropriate citations).

Because Relator failed to provide clear arguments for his complaint with

appropriate citations to authority and the record, we deny his petition for writ of habeas

corpus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(i).

Per Curiam

1 Relator cites to two family code statutes regarding the requirements of a hearing and order on

contempt but otherwise provides no analysis as to the effect of failure to comply with those requirements. To find the controlling authority for Relator, develop his argument, and then rule on it would take us out of our role as a neutral adjudicator and become his advocate—a role we cannot take. See Bonner v. Mezzo Gardens LP, No. 07-26-00051-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 2013, *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (quoting Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.)). 2