In Re Kaitlan Ross v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-24-00283-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE KAITLAN ROSS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina¹

On May 24, 2024, relator Kaitlan Ross filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting that the trial court erred by finding her in contempt because the motion for enforcement filed by the real party in interest Aaron Mach failed to meet the requirements *2 of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 157.002. Relator also filed a motion for release from incarceration pending the resolution of this original proceeding.

An order of contempt may be reviewed through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In re Luther, 620 S.W.3d 715, 721 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). A court will issue a writ of habeas corpus if the order underlying the contempt is void or if the contempt order itself is void. See id. at 722. The relator bears the burden of showing that the contempt order is void and not merely voidable. In re B.G.B., 580 S.W.3d 310, 315– 16 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2019, orig. proceeding); In re Munks, 263 S.W.3d 270, 272–73 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, orig. proceeding). A contempt order is void if it deprives the relator of liberty without due process of law or if it exceeded the power of the court to issue. In re Office of Atty. Gen., 422 S.W.3d 623, 628 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); In re Mayorga, 538 S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of habeas corpus, the response filed by Mach, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain relief. We deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the amended emergency motion for release.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 30th day of May, 2024.

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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.1 (requiring the appellate courts to “hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).