Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00780-CV
EX PARTE Ezra DUNN
Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 26, 2014
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED
On November 10, 2014, relator Ezra Dunn filed an original pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus contending he is being illegally confined after the trial court found him in contempt
for failure to pay previously ordered child support and ordered him confined for 180 days.
Specifically, Dunn asserts Sheriff Susan Pamerleau has failed to give him “good time” credit in
violation of his right to equal protection under the law. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
42.032 § 2 (West Supp. 2014).
A relator is entitled to habeas corpus relief if he establishes he was deprived of liberty
without due process of law, or if we conclude the judgment ordering confinement is void. See In
re Henry, 154 S.W.3d 594, 596 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); In re Alexander, 243 S.W.3d 822,
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006EM500229, styled In the Interest of J.E.W., A Child, pending in the
224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.
04-14-00780-CV
824 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding). The purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding
is not to determine the relator’s guilt or innocence, but to ascertain if the relator has been
unlawfully confined. Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex. 1979) (orig. proceeding);
Alexander, 243 S.W.3d at 827.
It is relator’s burden in this proceeding to provide this court with a record sufficient to
establish his right to habeas corpus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a); Walker v. Packer, 827
S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). This court received from the trial court clerk a
copy of the trial court’s Order Enforcing Child Support and Medical Support Obligation dated
October 2, 2013.
Dunn contends he is being denied equal protection under the law by the denial of “good
time” credits on his sentence when such credits are available to prisoners serving sentences on
criminal charges. While article 42.032 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure gives the sheriff
discretion to award “good time” credit to those being punished by criminal contempt orders, the
statute does not apply to those being punished by coercive civil contempt orders. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.032 § 2 (West Supp. 2014); Ex parte Acly, 711 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex.
1986) (orig. proceeding). The trial court’s order in this case imposes both punitive contempt and
coercive civil contempt findings. Dunn would not be entitled to consideration for “good time”
credit under the statute for the criminal contempt portion of the order until he has satisfied the
coercive contempt portion of the order. See Acly, 711 S.W.2d at 628. The record does not
demonstrate that Dunn has satisfied the coercive contempt requirements of the trial court’s order.
Accordingly, we are unable to say that there is any abuse of discretion in the failure to award “good
time” credits in this instance. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837. Dunn has not
established that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief on this ground. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 42.032 § 2; Ex parte Acly, 711 S.W.2d at 628.
-2-
04-14-00780-CV
Relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
PER CURIAM
-3-