in the Interest of M.D.J., M.D.J. and M.D.J., Children

Opinion

NO. 07-06-0447-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JUNE 5, 2007

______________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.J., M.D.J., AND M.D.J.

_________________________________

FROM THE 69 TH DISTRICT COURT OF MOORE COUNTY;

NO. 02-66; HON. DAVID L. GLEASON, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Order of Dismissal

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Michael Jones appeals from orders holding him in contempt and revoking his previously suspended commitment.  He seeks to reverse the “contempt finding” and obtain his release by contending that he was denied due process and effective counsel at the hearing.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.  

An appellate court may not review a contempt order on direct appeal.   Texas Animal Health Comm’n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952-53 (Tex. 1983); In re B.C.C., 187 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Tex. App. – Tyler 2006, no pet.); Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied).   Review occurs through either a petition for writ of habeas corpus or for writ of mandamus depending upon whether the complainant suffers confinement .   Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d at 671.  Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and dismiss it.

Brian Quinn

         Chief Justice