In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-03-00177-CR
______________________________
LARRY EVERETT WHITE, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court
Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court No. 21,453
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On June 6, 2003, Larry Everett White, Jr., waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty to five felony charges pending in Hunt County, Texas. This appeal concerns only White's conviction for aggravated robbery in trial court cause number 21,453. The indictment further alleged White had been previously, finally, and sequentially convicted of two additional felony offenses. After the trial court admonished White about the enhanced punishment range applicable in this case (twenty-five to ninety-nine years, or life), White pled "true" to enhancement allegations. The trial court ordered a presentence investigation report. On July 24, 2003, the trial court sentenced White to fifty years' imprisonment. (There was not a negotiated plea agreement in this case.) White timely appealed his conviction and sentence to this Court.
White appealed each of his five convictions separately, but the briefs in four of the cases are substantively identical: White's counsel has reviewed the record and determined there are no nonfrivolous issues that may be raised; he asks that we allow him to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Since the briefs and arguments raised therein are identical in each appeal, for the reasons stated in White v. State, No. 06-03-00173-CR, we likewise affirm the trial court's judgment.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: March 2, 2004
Date Decided: March 18, 2004
Do Not Publish
">July 18, 2003:Order reinstating case signed by Judge Jarvis
August 22, 2003:Objection to visiting judge filed; Judge Jarvis grants objection
Leonard contends that, because Judge Jarvis' granting of the objection was a clear failure to observe and apply a mandatory statute, mandamus is the appropriate remedy. Specifically, he contends that, because Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.053(c) (Vernon 1998) requires any objection to an assigned judge to be made before the first hearing in the case, and because the objection was untimely because it was not made until after Judge Jarvis had already conducted a hearing and ruled on the proceeding, the judge improperly applied a mandatory statute. Thus, he contends, Judge Jarvis should continue as the sitting judge in the case, should enter an order overruling the objection, and proceed under the order of assignment.
In response, Theresa takes the position that, because Leonard did not file a motion for new trial or for reconsideration of the dismissal within thirty days from the date the dismissal was granted, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take any action after its plenary power period expired.
Theresa's initial position is essentially that any attempt to undo the dismissal of the contempt proceeding either had to be pursued by appeal or by the address of a timely motion to the trial court and that, since neither occurred, everything that happened after the trial court's plenary power expired is essentially a nullity. Decisions in contempt proceedings are not appealable. Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243, 243 n.1 (Tex. 1985); Ex parte Cardwell, 416 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1967). Similarly, an order finding a party not in contempt is not a final, appealable judgment. Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655 (Tex. 1985). We have found no cases, and have been directed to no cases, that apply Tex. R. Civ. P. 329(b) to rulings made in contempt proceedings. Thus, the plenary power constraints of the rule would not apply in this case.
As a general rule, a trial court retains plenary power over its interlocutory orders until a final judgment is entered. Fruehauf v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993). A trial court thus has the inherent authority to change or modify any interlocutory order until its plenary power expires. Mendez v. San Benito/Cameron County Drainage Dist. No. 3, 45 S.W.3d 746, 754 (Tex. App.‒Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied). Further, except as authorized by the Legislature for specific categories of interlocutory orders, such orders are by their very nature not appealable.
This situation arguably requires a different result because, by its very nature, this type of contempt proceeding, though part of the continuing saga of the divorce, is a separate order, and finality will not accrue on entry of some final judgment. That position, however, flies in the face of the cases holding categorically that contempt may be addressed only through habeas or mandamus in the proper circumstances. We decline the invitation to treat this situation differently.
Thus, appeal was not an available remedy in this case.
We now turn to the issue raised by the petition for writ of mandamus: whether the visiting judge committed error, subject to correction by mandamus, by removing himself from the case based on Theresa's objection to him sitting as a visiting judge. The real party in interest filed an objection to Judge Jarvis under Section 74.053, at a time after Judge Jarvis had signed an order reinstating the contempt proceeding. The order states it was granted after hearing the evidence and argument of counsel.
If the assigned judge refuses to remove himself or herself after a party timely files an objection under Section 74.053, that judge's subsequent orders are void and the objecting party is entitled to mandamus relief without a showing it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. Dunn v. Street, 938 S.W.2d 33, 34-35 (Tex. 1997); Flores v. Banner, 932 S.W.2d 500, 501 (Tex. 1996). The denial of a timely Section 74.053 objection is a proper subject of mandamus. In re Flores, 53 S.W.3d 428, 430 (Tex. App.‒San Antonio 2001, orig. proceeding). Under the statute, to be timely and thus make the recusal mandatory, an objection must be filed before the judge presides over any hearing. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.053 (Vernon 1998); In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698, 702 (Tex. 2001). Whether formal notice of the appointment was given is not relevant to this determination. See Canales, 52 S.W.3d at 702.
The objection was filed August 22, over thirty days after Judge Jarvis signed the reinstatement order following a hearing. The objection was not timely, and thus Judge Jarvis was not required to remove himself from the case.
The question before this Court, however, is whether some mandatory reading of the statute required Judge Jarvis not to remove himself, but instead to stay on the case as the sitting judge when the objection was untimely.
Mandamus will lie only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy at law. Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985). The writ will issue to compel a public official to do a ministerial act, that is, one that is clear and definite and does not involve the exercise of discretion. Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Tex. 1991); Benavides v. Garcia, 687 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.‒San Antonio 1985, orig. proceeding). A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel a public official to perform an act which involves an exercise of discretion. Anderson, 806 S.W.2d at 793; Benavides, 687 S.W.2d at 398. When a statute delineates the act an official is to perform with sufficient certainty so nothing is left to the exercise of discretion, the case involves only performance of a ministerial act and is subject to mandamus. See Anderson, 806 S.W.2d at 793.
This is the opposite of the usual situation. If the objection had been timely, and if Judge Jarvis had refused to remove himself from the case, he would be in violation of a mandatory statute and mandamus would lie. In this case, regardless of whether the objection was timely, the statute does not require Judge Jarvis to refuse to remove himself. Even if he did misunderstand the import of Canales and the statute, Leonard has directed this Court to no mandatory language that would require Judge Jarvis to deny the motion and remain in place as the trial judge. In the absence of the violation of a mandatory duty, mandamus will not lie.
We deny the petition.
Donald R. Ross
Justice
Date Submitted: October 29, 2003
Date Decided: October 30, 2003