Roy Witcher v. R. Darryl Bennett
This text of Roy Witcher v. R. Darryl Bennett (Roy Witcher v. R. Darryl Bennett) 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
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-05-00069-CV
ROY WITCHER, Appellant
Â
V.
R. DARRYL BENNETT, Appellee
                                             Â
On Appeal from the 4th Judicial District Court
Rusk County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-24
                                                Â
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Cornelius,* JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
_____________
*William J. Cornelius, Chief Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment
MEMORANDUM OPINION
            The parties to this appeal, Roy Witcher and R. Darryl Bennett, were previously involved in litigation over real property located in Rusk County. See Witcher v. Bennett, 120 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. App.âTexarkana 2003, pet. denied). That case resulted in a determination that the disputed property was owned by Bennett, and Witcher was permanently enjoined from entering on Bennett's property. Id. at 924. Bennett alleged Witcher continued to trespass on Bennett's property and moved the trial court to hold Witcher in contempt. After the hearing, the trial court made such a finding and ordered Witcher confined in the Rusk County jail for six months. Witcher appeals that order of contempt.
            On appeal, Witcher claims he had no notice of the injunction; the award of attorney's fees was not supported by the evidence; and such attorney's fees were not reasonable. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
            Decisions in contempt proceedings are not appealable. Ex parte Cardwell, 416 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1967); Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 55 (Tex. App.âHouston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (citing Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243 n.1 (Tex. 1985)). A contempt judgment is reviewable only by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved). See In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999); Kidd v. Lance, 794 S.W.2d 586, 587 (Tex. App.âAustin 1990, no writ); see also Deramus v. Thornton, 160 Tex. 494, 333 S.W.2d 824, 827 (1960) ("We have uniformly held in this State, however, that the validity of a contempt judgment can be attacked only collaterally and that by way of habeas corpus."). Decisions in contempt proceedings are not appealable, even when appealed along with a judgment that is appealable. Metzger, 892 S.W.2d at 55.
            Considering the above authorities, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction to hear Witcher's appeal from this contempt proceeding.
            We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
                                                                        Jack Carter
                                                                        Justice
Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â January 9, 2006
Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â January 10, 2006
f-defense would thwart the legislative purpose to impose a higher standard and circumvent the "retreat" requirement of Section 9.32 where the use of deadly force is sought to be justified.'" Searcy, 231 S.W.3d at 544 (quoting Banks v. State, 955 S.W.2d 116, 119 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1997, no pet.)); see Butler v. State, 663 S.W.2d 492, 496 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1983), aff'd, 736 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); cf. Banks, 955 S.W.2d 116 (suggesting, when both necessity and self-defense justifications are raised, the inclusion of one of the justifications in the charge precludes the inclusion of the other); Fitch v. State, No. 14-06-00408-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7065 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 30, 2007, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding counsel not ineffective for failing to request charge on necessity because necessity not available).
Perry cites Bowen v. State, 162 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), in support of his argument on appeal. (2) In Bowen, a prosecution for resisting arrest, the defendant had kicked a police officer in response to pain allegedly inflicted by the officer and in an attempt to regain her balance. Id. Noting the justification based on self-defense is extremely limited when a person uses force to resist arrest, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the trial court erred in denying the requested instruction on necessity. Id. at 229. In reaching the above conclusion, the court held Section 9.31, which concerns self-defense not involving deadly force, does not limit the necessity defense's application because the court was unable to "glean any clear legislative purpose indicating that the necessity defense is not available." Id.
Bowen is distinguishable from this case because it did not involve the use of deadly force. The use of deadly force in the defense of a person involves a different section of the Texas Penal Code and requires proof that a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated. Because the retreat requirement was not at issue in Bowen, we conclude Bowen is distinguishable.
Here, the trial court instructed the jury on self-defense using deadly force, which included a duty to retreat. Thus, the inclusion of the justification of necessity, on facts such as these which implicate the application of self-defense using deadly force, would undermine the Legislature's purpose in imposing the duty to retreat. The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the justification of necessity. We overrule Perry's sole point of error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Roy Witcher v. R. Darryl Bennett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-witcher-v-r-darryl-bennett-texapp-2006.