In re J.J Appeal from 313th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 7, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00062-CV IN RE J.J, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 313th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015-05307J MEMORANDUM OPINION On Tuesday, January 24, 2017, relator J.J. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator complains of a final decree, signed by Honorable Glenn Devlin, presiding judge of the 313th District Court of Harris County, terminating the parent-child relationship between relator and her children, S.R.G. and C.J.G. A court of appeals may issue a writ of habeas corpus when a person’s liberty is restrained because the person has violated an order, judgment, or decree entered in a civil case. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(d). An original habeas corpus proceeding is a collateral attack on a contempt order. Ex parte Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex. 1967) (orig. proceeding). The contemnor bears the burden of showing that he is entitled to relief. In re Chaumette, 439 S.W.3d 412, 415 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding). Relator has not suggested or proved that she has been found in contempt. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1); 52.7(a). Rather, she is challenging a final judgment that she has already appealed to this court. See No. 14-16-00900-CV, In the Interest of S.R.G. and C.J.G., Children. Because she has not been found in contempt, relator’s petition does not invoke our jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in a civil case. See Ex parte Crawford, 91 S.W.2d 1047, 1048 (Tex. 1936); In re Gonzalez, No. 04-02-00799CV, 2002 WL 31695086, *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 4, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we dismiss her petition for writ of habeas corpus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Brown. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.