in the Interest of M.D.J., M.D.J. and M.D.J., Children
This text of in the Interest of M.D.J., M.D.J. and M.D.J., Children (in the Interest of M.D.J., M.D.J. and M.D.J., Children) 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
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
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 M.D.J., M.D.J. and M.D.J., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-mdj-mdj-and-mdj-children-texapp-2007.