Summary
concluding relator not entitled to a jury trial because the 175-day sentence did not exceed six months and $500 fine per offense that became aggregated fine of $6,000 did not "transform a petty offense into a serious one."
Summary of this case from Ex parte HayesOpinion
No. 05-05-01068-CV
Opinion issued August 16, 2005.
Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 00-22674-U.
Writ of Habeas Corpus Denied.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original habeas corpus proceeding, relator Christopher Daniel Spradley challenges the trial court's order holding him in contempt for failure to pay child support. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them here.
In his first issue, relator contends the trial court erred in incarcerating him without a commitment order. We conclude the language in the August 1, 2005 order that orders relator committed to the Dallas County Jail for a period of 175 days satisfies the requirements of a commitment order. See Ex parte Barnett, 600 .W.2d 252, 256 (Tex. 1980) (orig. proceeding); Ex parte Linder, 783 S.W.2d 754, 757 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, orig. proceeding). We resolve relator's first issue against him.
In his second issue, relator contends the trial judge erred in not admonishing him of his right to a jury trial. Relying on Ex parte Griffin,, 682 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. 1984) (orig. proceeding), relator asserts that the 175-day sentence and aggregate $6000 fine constitute a serious offense, entitling him to a jury trial. We disagree.
In determining whether a sentence of confinement constitutes a serious offense, we must look at the sentence actually imposed. See Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tex. 1976) (orig. proceeding). Because the 175-day sentence does not exceed six months, relator was not entitled to a jury trial on the basis of the sentence. See id.; see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 21.002(b) (Vernon 2004).
Nor do we conclude the aggregate $6000 fine entitled relator to a jury trial. The judge found relator guilty of twelve separate acts of contempt and assessed a $500 fine for each act. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 21.002(b). Each $500 fine, individually, constitutes a petty offense. See id.; see also Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 327 (1996). The aggregation of punishment for multiple acts of contempt does not transform a petty offense into a serious one. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 327. Relator was ordered to pay a $6000 fine solely as the result of the aggregation of the twelve $500 fines. Therefore, we conclude he was not entitled to a jury trial on the basis of the fine. See id. at 330. We resolve appellant's second issue against him.
Because we conclude the criminal contempt order is valid, we do not reach relator's complaints regarding the civil contempt order. See Ex parte Occhipenti, 796 S.W.2d 805, 810 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding). Relator may file a new petition for writ of habeas corpus if, after he has served the 175-day sentence for criminal contempt, he remains confined on the civil contempt order. See id.
We deny relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus.