in Re Leon Gonzales

NUMBER 13-14-00706-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE LEON GONZALES

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam¹

On December 11, 2014, relator, Leon Gonzales, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus through which he seeks release from incarceration for contempt based on his failure to pay child support. Relator contends that he has been confined without due process of law because he was neither provided with a hearing nor afforded the right to make bond after his incarceration.

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 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).

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. Although relator has provided the Court with documentation pertaining to the administrative writ of withholding sent to relator’s employer, relator has not furnished the Court with any other documents or pleadings pertinent to this proceeding. 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 18th day of December, 2014.

Footnotes

[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).