Richard Francis v. Cassandra Faye Francis--Appeal from 279th District Court of Jefferson County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-11-00098-CV _________________ RICHARD FRANCIS, Appellant V. CASSANDRA FAYE FRANCIS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F-137,604 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Richard Francis filed a notice of appeal from a judgment of contempt. We questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal and instructed the parties to file written responses. This Court possesses original habeas jurisdiction in a case in which a person s liberty is restrained for a violation of an order, judgment, or decree in a civil case. See Tex. Gov t Code Ann. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). Generally in such a case, neither appeal nor mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for relief; a petition for writ of habeas corpus is generally the only method for attacking an order of contempt. In re Reece, No. 09-0520, 1 2011 WL 2112786, *7 (Tex. May 27, 2011) (citing Deramus v. Thornton, 160 Tex. 494, 333 S.W.2d 824, 827 (1960)).1 An appeal may be taken from an arrearage judgment. See In re B.A.T., No. 05-10-00593-CV, 2010 WL 3991426, *1 (Tex. App. Dallas Oct. 11, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op). The arrearage judgment signed on December 8, 2010, was filed more than thirty days before Francis filed a notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Francis did not attempt to perfect an appeal within the time for which an extension may be granted for perfecting an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED. ________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Opinion Delivered June 30, 2011 Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 An original proceeding in habeas corpus has been filed and is proceeding separately from this appeal. 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.