Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00831-CV
EX PARTE David REYES
Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 17, 2014
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED
On December 1, 2014, relator David Reyes filed an original pro se habeas corpus
proceeding contending he is illegally incarcerated pursuant to the trial court’s orders finding him
in contempt for failure to pay previously ordered child support and committing him to county jail
for 180 days. Specifically, Reyes 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. FAM. CODE ANN.
§§ 157.008(c), 157.163 (West 2014).
This court received from the trial court clerk a copy of the trial court’s Order Enforcing
and Modifying Support Obligation dated January 12, 2012.
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2000EM501651, styled In the Interest of A.M.R., A Child, pending in the
225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Eric Rodriguez presiding.
04-14-00831-CV
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,
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.
Reyes 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 Enforcing and Modifying Support Obligation in
this case imposes both punitive criminal contempt and coercive civil contempt findings. Reyes
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 Reyes 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. Reyes 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-
04-14-00831-CV
Relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
PER CURIAM
-3-