in Re Eric Francis Hernandez ( 2014 )

NUMBER 13-14-00025-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ERIC FRANCIS HERNANDEZ
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
On January 14, 2014, relator, Eric Francis Hernandez, filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus through which he seeks release from incarceration for punitive contempt
based on his failure to pay child support. On August 15, 2013 and August 19, 2013, the
associate judge proposed and the trial court entered an order enforcing and modifying
relator’s support obligation. The order found relator in punitive contempt of court for
failing to timely make four separate child support payments and medical support
1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
payments when relator had the ability to make the payments, but did not, and ordered
relator to be committed for 180 days for each violation with the commitments to run
concurrently. The order also concluded that relator could pay $5,000.00 in arrearages
and $304.00 in court costs and ordered him incarcerated until paid. By order issued on
December 6, 2013, the trial court found no reason why sentence should not be imposed
and ordered relator committed. Through this original proceeding, relator contends that
his restraint is unlawful because he was not afforded legal representation at the
underlying hearings, he was not admonished regarding the dangers and disadvantages
of self-representation, and his waiver of the right to counsel was not effective because it
was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent.
The purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is not to determine the ultimate guilt
or innocence of the relator, but only to ascertain whether the relator has been unlawfully
confined. Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex. 1979). In a habeas corpus
proceeding, the order or judgment being challenged is presumed to be valid. In re
R.E.D., 278 S.W.3d 850, 855 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding); In
re Turner, 177 S.W.3d 284, 288 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding);
Ex parte Occhipenti, 796 S.W.2d 805, 809 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig.
proceeding). In order to obtain relief by habeas corpus, the relator must establish that
the underlying order is void because of a lack of jurisdiction or because the relator was
deprived of liberty without due process of law. In re Turner, 177 S.W.3d at 288; In re
Butler, 45 S.W.3d 268, 270 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).
The relator bears the burden of showing that he is entitled to relief. In re Munks, 263
2
S.W.3d 270, 272–73 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, orig. proceeding); In re
Turner, 177 S.W.3d at 288.
The form and requirements for an original appellate proceeding seeking
extraordinary relief, such as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, are delineated by the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52. In addition to
other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations
to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a
clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to
authorities and to the appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this
regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the
claim for relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R.
52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).
Relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus does not meet the foregoing
requirements established by the appellate rules. Specifically, for instance, every
statement of fact in the petition is not supported by citation to competent evidence
included in the appendix or record, id. R. 52.3(g); the appendix does not include proof
that the relator is being restrained, id. R. 52.3(k)(D); the record does not contain a
certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief
and that was filed in the underlying proceeding, id. R. 52.7(a)(1); and the record does
not include a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any
underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no
testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained, id. R. 52.7(a)(2). In
this regard, we note that the orders at issue in this case were issued after a series of
3
various pleadings were filed and different hearings were held. Further, the substantive
issues raised by this petition for writ of habeas corpus require evidentiary support in the
record.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of habeas
corpus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to
obtain relief. See In re Munks, 263 S.W.3d at 272–73; In re Turner, 177 S.W.3d at 288.
Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
14th day of January, 2014.
4