In re Lombrana, No. 4-06-00511-CV (Tex. App. 9/27/2006)
| Decision Date | 27 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-06-00511-CV.,4-06-00511-CV. |
| Parties | IN RE DANIEL LOMBRANA, JR. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Sitting: Catherine STONE, Justice, Karen ANGELINI, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
On July 19, 2006, relator Daniel Lombrana, Jr. was found in contempt of court for failure to pay child support and was taken into custody by the Webb County sheriff. An order holding Lombrana in contempt and committing him to the county jail was not signed until July 26, 2006. This combined contempt and commitment order recites the specific days Lombrana failed to pay child support, finds him in civil contempt of court, and orders him confined in the county jail until a $4,629.00 child support arrearage, including any accrued interest, is paid. On July 27, 2006, the district clerk of Webb County received from Lombrana a check for $4,699.00 payable to obligee Adriana Lombrana.
On July 31, 2006, Lombrana filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this court alleging that his due process rights were violated when the trial court neglected to sign the contempt and commitment order until seven days after he was taken into custody. The record included certification from the sheriff that Lombrana was still in custody. We granted interim relief, and ordered Lombrana conditionally released from jail upon posting a cash bond. The attorney for the real party in interest was provided an opportunity to respond to Lombrana's petition. No response has been filed.
The purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the relator, but to determine if the relator has been unlawfully confined. Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex. 1979). Both a written judgment of contempt and a written commitment order are necessary to imprison a person who violates a court order outside of the court's presence. Ex parte Amaya, 748 S.W.2d 224, 224-25 (Tex. 1988); In re Seligman, 9 S.W.3d 452, 454 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, orig. proceeding); Tex. Family Code Ann. § 157.166 (Vernon 2002). A person found to be in contempt may be detained by the sheriff for a short and reasonable time while contempt and commitment orders are prepared for the judge's signature. Ex parte Jordan, 865 S.W.2d 459, 459 (Tex. 1993); Amaya, 748 S.W.2d at 225. A delay of three days in signing the necessary orders is not a short and reasonable time and violates due process. Ex parte Jordan, 865 S.W.2d at 459; Amaya, 748 S.W.2d at 225.
In this case, the seven-day delay in signing a contempt and commitment order violated Lombrana's due process rights. See Ex parte Jordan, 865 S.W.2d at 459; In re Seligman, 9 S.W.3d at 454. Although the record contains a document signed by the trial judge and dated July 19, 2006, we conclude it is not the required contempt and commitment order....
To continue reading
Request your trial