IN RE: Jayme Lynn Cantu (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is relator Jayme Lynn Cantu's petition for writ of habeas corpus in which she seeks discharge from confinement for criminal contempt.  The trial court found relator guilty of direct contempt of court for perjuring herself during the contempt proceedings.  The trial court sentenced her to sixty days' confinement for direct contempt.  The trial court additionally sentenced her to one hundred twenty days' confinement for constructive contempt of court for violating the court's prior order awarding possession of certain residential real property to Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”).  The trial court ordered that the sentences would run consecutively.

A habeas corpus proceeding is a collateral attack on a judgment that imposes punishment for contempt.  In re Johnson, 337 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2011, orig. proceeding).  In its essence, contempt is conduct that obstructs the administration of justice.  See Ex parte Taylor, 807 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex.Crim.App.1991);  see also Ex parte Norton, 144 Tex. 445, 449, 191 S.W.2d 713, 714 (1946) (defining contempt as conduct that “tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, interferes with or prejudices parties or their witnesses during a litigation, or otherwise tends to impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court in discharge of its duties”).  A court may punish for contempt.  Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 21.002 (West 2004).  A petition for writ of habeas corpus does not inquire into the relator's guilt or innocence of the conduct charged, but only determines if the order of contempt is void.   Ex parte Gordon, 5 84 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex.1979) (orig.proceeding);  Ex parte Casey, 944 S.W.2d 18, 19 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, orig. proceeding).  A contempt order is void if it is beyond the power of the court to render it or if it deprives the relator of liberty without due process of law.  Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Tex.1980) (orig.proceeding).

Relator does not argue that the trial court lacked the power to render an order holding her in contempt.  Having reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the record in this case, we conclude relator has not been deprived of liberty without due process.  We overrule each of relator's nine issues.  We DENY the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Opinion by Justice Whitehill