in the Interest of A. S. M., a Child
This text of in the Interest of A. S. M., a Child (in the Interest of A. S. M., a Child) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
§ No. 08-16-00230-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.M., § Appeal from A CHILD. § 65th District Court § of El Paso County, Texas § (TC # 2004CM737) §
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This interlocutory appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it
should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that the contempt order is not appealable,
we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
On June 7, 2016, the trial court entered an order finding Rogelio Marquez in criminal
contempt for failure to comply with a child support order. Marquez filed notice of appeal. It is
well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and interlocutory orders
made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corporation, 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.
2001); TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2016)(authorizing appeals from
certain interlocutory orders). A court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review a contempt order on
direct appeal. Texas Animal Health Commission v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983).
Mandamus is available to challenge an order of contempt not involving confinement. See In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999); Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex. 1995).
When a contempt order imposes confinement in jail as punishment for violation of a court’s prior
order, mandamus review is unavailable, and the relator must instead file a petition for writ of
habeas corpus. See Chavira v. Quarry Hills Management, LLC, 458 S.W.3d 561, 565-66
(Tex.App.--El Paso 2014, pet. denied).
On September 26, 2016, the Court sent notice to Marquez that the clerk’s record had been
filed, and we advised him of the Court’s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction
because the record did not include a final judgment or appealable order. Marquez did not file
any response to the Court’s letter notice. Finding that we do not have jurisdiction to review the
contempt order on direct appeal, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
October 27, 2016 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Interest of A. S. M., a Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-a-s-m-a-child-texapp-2016.