EUGENE, EX PARTE ANGEL v. the State of Texas

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0461-24

EX PARTE ANGEL EUGENE, Appellant

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION

On February 10, 2022, Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 16 (the “trial

court”), held appellant in contempt, sentenced her to six months in jail, and probated the

sentence for one year community supervision.

On February 3, 2023, appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus in the district court

(the “habeas court”). The habeas court issued the writ the same day. Appellant argued that

her restraint in the contempt case was illegal and that the contempt judgment was void

because it was based upon constitutionally insufficient notice.

On February 6, 2023, the trial court entered an order dismissing its judgment of

contempt. Appellant filed an amended application arguing that it was not clear that the
trial court’s dismissal “had any legal effect” because it was questionable whether it “can

undo a final judgment a year after finding someone in contempt.”

On February 24, 2023, the habeas court held a hearing on appellant’s application.

In light of the dismissal by the trial court, the habeas court denied relief. Appellant filed a

notice of appeal from the habeas court’s denial of relief.

The court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ex parte Eugene, No. 01-

23-00172-CR slip op. (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] April 2, 2024)(not designated for

publication). The court reasoned that because the cause against appellant had been

dismissed by the trial court, the premise underlying her habeas application was gone and

the legal issues rendered moot. The court also noted that appellant had provided no

authority in her habeas petition to support her argument that the trial court’s order

dismissing the judgment of contempt was without any legal effect, and the court was

aware of no such authority. Finally, the court said that there was no right of appeal from a

refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus when the habeas court did not consider the merits.

It held that appellant had no right of appeal because the record did not reflect that the trial

court considered or resolved the merits of the habeas application.

Appellant has now filed a petition for discretionary review in which she contends

that the court of appeals erred by failing to address her argument that the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to dismiss the contempt judgment. Appellant also contends that the court of

appeals erred in holding she had no right to appeal. We agree with both contentions.

Where a habeas court issues the writ but denies relief, the applicant has a right to
appeal the denial of relief. See Ex parte Johnson, 561 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978)(where trial court issues writ but denies relief, petitioner has right to appeal order

denying relief); see also Ex parte McCullough, 966 S.W.2d 529, 531 (Tex. Crim. App.

1998). Here, the habeas court “issued” the writ on February 3, 2023. On February 24,

2023, it held a hearing and denied relief. Appellant appealed from the habeas court’s

denial of relief. Appellant’s appeal was properly before the court of appeals.

Appellant argued before the court of appeals that the trial court had no jurisdiction

to dismiss the judgment of contempt it had entered almost a year before because its

plenary power had expired. Appellant cited authority in support of her argument. The

court of appeals was required to address appellant’s argument. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1

(court of appeals must issue a written opinion “that addresses every issue raised and

necessary to final disposition of the appeal”).

We grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the

court of appeals, and remand this cause to the court of appeals for proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

Delivered July 31, 2024
Do not publish