Ex parte Eugene
2024 WL 3594455
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Delivered: July 31, 2024. PD-0461-24.
The legal issue
The companion case to Ex parte McGee. Same court (Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 16). Same setup: a person on bond in a criminal case, alleged to have violated the “no new law violations” condition, then held in contempt of the bond conditions rather than prosecuted for the new offenses through ordinary process. Same procedural pattern after that: a contempt judgment, almost a year later a habeas application, then the trial court’s order dismissing its own contempt judgment after plenary power had expired.
The habeas court denied relief. The First Court of Appeals dismissed. The court of appeals reasoned in two steps: (1) the underlying contempt cause had been “dismissed” by the trial court, so the habeas issues were moot, and (2) Ms. Eugene had no right of appeal because the habeas court had not reached the merits.
Both rulings were wrong.
What the Court held
Per curiam grant of review, vacate, and remand. The Court addressed both errors.
First, where the habeas court issues the writ but denies relief, the applicant has a right to appeal the denial. Ex parte Johnson, 561 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Ex parte McCullough, 966 S.W.2d 529, 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The habeas court here issued the writ on February 3, 2023, then denied relief on February 24, 2023. The appeal was properly before the court of appeals.
Second, the court of appeals had to address the jurisdictional argument Ms. Eugene actually raised: whether the trial court had jurisdiction to dismiss its contempt judgment after plenary power expired. Rule 47.1 requires a written opinion that addresses every issue raised and necessary to disposition. The court of appeals did not.
The case returns for the court of appeals to do what it should have done in the first place.
Read the opinion
Appellate counsel: Mark Bennett.
See also the companion case, Ex parte McGee.