Andre Ammiel v. Sherry L. Atchison

Opinion issued July 30, 2010. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-08-00638-CV ——————————— ANDRE AMMIEL, Appellant V. SHERRY L. ATCHISON, Appellee On Appeal from the 310th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2006-62386 MEMORANDUM  OPINION Appellant, Andre Ammiel (“Ammiel”), challenges the trial court’s “Final Decree Modifying Prior Order (2004) Modifying the Parent Child Relationship” (“modification order”) and “Final Order on Sherry Atchison’s First Amended Motion for Enforcement of Order in Suit to Modify the Parent-Child Relationship,” (“contempt order”). We dismiss Ammiel’s appeal of the enforcement order, for want of jurisdiction, and affirm the trial court’s modification order. BACKGROUND In 2004, the trial court issued a modification order appointing Ammiel and appellee, Sherry Atchison, to be their child’s joint managing conservators with duties of financially supporting the child and specified rights of possession and access to the child. On April 15, 2008, the trial court, in its “Final Decree Modifying Prior Order (2004) Modifying the Parent-Child Relationship,” modified the 2004 modification order by appointing Atchison to be the sole managing conservator and Ammiel to be the possessory conservator. Also on April 15, 2008, the trial court signed its “Final Order On Sherry Atchison’s First Amended Motion for Enforcement of Order In Suit to Modify the Parent-Child Relationship,” in which it held Ammiel in contempt for three instances of not surrendering possession of the child to Atchison. It assessed Ammiel 180 days’ confinement for each violation to run concurrently, but suspended his commitment, placing him on community supervision. In his brief, Ammiel asserts that he filed a “Motion to Vacate Final Decree Modifying Prior Order signed April 15, 2008 Modifying the Parent-Child Relationship and Final Order on Sherry Lovenda Atchison’s First Amended Motion for Enforcement of Order in Suit to Modify the Parent-Child Relationship signed April 15, 2008.” On July 4, 2008, prior to the hearing on his motion to vacate (motion for new trial), Ammiel filed his motion to recuse the trial judge, which the trial court denied on July 7, 2008. Ammiel filed his notice of appeal, stating his intention to appeal the order denying the recusal of the trial judge. The record consists of the clerk’s record and a June 19, 2008 reporter’s record documenting the trial court’s reset to July 14, 2008 of the hearing on Ammiel’s motion to vacate. ANALYSIS A. Dismissal of Challenges to Contempt Order In issues two, three, and part of issue one, appellant brings various challenges to the contempt order. He brings these challenges to the contempt order on direct appeal. A court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review a contempt order that imposes confinement on direct appeal. Vernon v. Vernon, 225 S.W.3d 179, 180 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.) (citing Tex. Animal Health Comm’n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983)). Rather, the validity of a contempt order that imposes confinement must be considered upon application for a writ of habeas corpus. Vernon, 225 S.W.3d at 180 (citations omitted). Accordingly, we dismiss, Ammiel’s challenges to the contempt order for lack of jurisdiction. B. Failure to Preserve Remainder of Complaints for Review In issue one, in addition to the challenges to the contempt order, Ammiel complains that: (1) in issuing the 2008 modification order, the trial court did not address Atchison’s failure to comply with an earlier order, (2) the trial court dismissed the Office of the Attorney General’s motion to revoke Atchison’s community supervision, and (3) the trial court conspired with the Office of the Attorney General to violate Ammiel’s right to notice and to cross-examine by granting the Attorney General’s notice of non-suit. In issue four, Ammiel complains that the trial court erred in granting sole managing conservatorship to Atchison because she had had a child removed from her home through the intervention of Child Protective Services for violence against a family member. Finally, Ammiel complains that the trial judge erred in declining to recuse herself from the case. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must present to the trial court a timely request, motion or objection, state the specific grounds therefore, and obtain a ruling. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. McKenzie, 997 S.W.2d 278, 280 (Tex. 1999); Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Here, the record does not reflect that Ammiel brought any of these complaints to the trial court through a timely request, motion, or objection, except for the one regarding recusal. See id. With respect to his recusal complaint, the brief provides no citations to the record, case authorities, or argument other than to recite provisions of the Constitution and the Canons of Judicial Conduct. Thus, this issue is not adequately briefed to ascertain the complaint on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Therefore, we dismiss these complaints as not preserved for appellate review. CONCLUSION We dismiss, for want of jurisdiction, Ammiel’s challenges to the contempt order, and we affirm the modification order. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Sharp.