Ex parte Gonzales, B--113

Decision Date03 May 1967
Docket NumberNo. B--113,B--113
Citation414 S.W.2d 656
CourtTexas Supreme Court
PartiesEx parte Antonio L. GONZALES, Relator.

Peter S. Navarro, Jr., Houston, for relator.

Victor R. Blaine, Houston, for respondent.

NORVELL, Justice.

We need not discuss all the contentions raised in relator's brief because he must be discharged as the evidence adduced at the hearing which resulted in his commitment establishes his involuntary inability to comply with the court's order requiring the relator to make child support payments. Ex parte De Wees, 146 Tex. 564, 210 S.W.2d 145 (1948); Ex parte White, 154 Tex. 126, 274 S.W.2d 542 (1955); Ex parte Padfield, 154 Tex. 253, 276 S.W.2d 247 (1955); Ex parte Kollenborn, 154 Tex. 223, 276 S.W.2d 251 (1955).

The following constitutes a chronological statement of the facts:

February 5, 1957--Relator, Antonio L. Gonzales, was divorced from Beatrice Ramirez Gonzales and directed to pay the sum of $15.00 per week to the Probation Department of Harris County, Texas, until the couple's two minor children 'shall become 18 years of age'.

January 9, 1967--Antonio L. Gonzales was found guilty of contempt of court for failing to make the child support payments as ordered by the February 1957 decree. As punishment, he was ordered confined to the county jail for a period of three days. The coercive portion of the order directed that relator be further confined by the Sheriff of Harris County 'until he shall have purged himself of said contempt by paying to the Harris County Probation Department the sum of $490.00 as child support for his minor children and all costs of court accrued herein; * * *'.

January 15, 1967--Relator filed a sworn application for discharge from imprisonment for contempt of court in which he stated that he was confined in the Harris County jail because of his failure to pay the sum of $490.00 back child support, plus $29.00 court costs; that he was unable to pay such sums or any part thereof; that he had a second family consisting of a wife and seven children; and that he was unemployed and had no money. This motion was overruled by the trial court on January 30, 1967, apparently without hearing evidence.

February 22, 1967--Writ of habeas corpus was granted by this Court and the case set for hearing at which time the attorney for relator appeared, but respondents have neither appeared nor filed a brief herein.

Despite the direction of Article 2324, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Stats. that, 'Each Official Court Reporter shall: Attend all sessions of the court; take full shorthand notes of all oral testimony offered in cases tried in said courts,' etc., there apparently was no court reporter in attendance at the hearing held on January 7, 1967. However, relator has filed a brief narrative statement of facts agreed to by the relator and the attorney for Beatrice Ramirez Gonzales. No objection has been raised to the filing of this statement of facts in this Court.

The relator and his former wife were the only witnesses heard. Beatrice Ramirez Gonzales testified that she still had custody of the two...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Ex parte Johnson
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1983
    ...to impossibility of compliance with the court's order is in the trial court where the matter is being considered. See Ex parte Gonzales, 414 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Tex.1967); Ex parte Testard, 101 Tex. 250, 106 S.W. 319, 320 (1908). See generally Greenhill & Beirne, Habeas Corpus Proceedings in t......
  • Ex parte Linder
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 1990
    ...portion of the contempt order is void, the entire order itself is void. See Ex parte Lee, 704 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Tex.1986); Ex parte Gonzalez, 414 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Tex.1967). Although relator correctly cites Lee and Gonzalez, the rationale of those cases applies only where there is one punishme......
  • Ex parte Ramzy, B--498
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1968
    ...contempt imposing a coercive restraint is void if the conditions for purging the contempt are impossible of performance. Ex parte Gonzales, 414 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Sup.1967); Ex parte Thetford, 369 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.Sup.1963); Ex parte Helms, 152 Tex. 480, 259 S.W.2d 184 (1953); Ex parte De Wees,......
  • Ex parte Wright, 7851
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 17, 1976
    ...filed her bond in the sum of $250, with her counsel as sureties.2 For further amplification of the DeWees doctrine, see; Ex parte Gonzales, 414 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.1967); Ex parte Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex.1967). See also, Ex parte Padfield, 154 Tex. 253, 276 S.W.2d 247, 251 (1955), an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT