Micara Devers v. Shyrill Grays

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 24, 2011
• Docket: 01-10-00700-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 24, 2011.

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-10-00700-CV

———————————

Micara Devers, Appellant

V.

Shyrill Grays, Appellee

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2006-64644

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Micara Devers, attempts to appeal from an order holding her in contempt for failing to comply with a custody order.  Because we have no jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

          On May 11, 2010, the trial court signed a judgment holding Devers in contempt in the underlying proceeding because of her failure to surrender the minor child, L.G., to his father, appellee Shyrill Grays, as previously ordered.  Devers filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of contempt.

      However, decisions in contempt proceedings are not appealable. Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243 n. 1 (Tex. 1985); Ex parte Cardwell, 416 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1967); Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 31-32 (Tex. App.—Houston [1^st Dist.] 1994,writ denied); Mendez v. Attorney Gen. of Texas, 761 S.W.2d 519, 521 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988, no writ); Smith v. Holder, 756 S.W.2d 9, 10-11 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1988, no writ); Gensco, Inc. v. Thomas, 609 S.W.2d 650, 651 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1980, no writ); Anderson v. Burleson, 583 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, no writ).

The validity of a contempt order can be attacked only by a writ of habeas corpus. Williams, 690 S.W.2d at 243 n. 1; Wagner v. Warnasch, 295 S.W.2d 890, 893 (Tex. 1956); Metzger, 892 S.W.2d at 31-32; Saenz v. Saenz, 756 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1988, no writ); Anderson, 583 S.W.2d at 467; but see Deramus v. Thornton, 160 Tex. 494, 497-98, 333 S.W.2d 824, 827 (1960) (stating that there may be circumstances in some contempt proceedings that would make a remedy by habeas corpus inadequate, and that would therefore implicate mandamus relief); Kidd v. Lance, 794 S.W.2d 586, 587 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, orig. proceeding) (citing Deramus and holding that mandamus is the “only” available remedy where there is no order of confinement); International Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Axelson, Inc., 593 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1979, no writ).

Devers has filed neither a petition for writ of habeas corpus nor a mandamus, but rather seeks to appeal the trial court’s contempt order.  Because we have no jurisdiction to consider it, we order the appeal dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Massengale.