NO. 12-06-00136-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
§ APPEAL FROM THE
IN THE INTEREST OF
§ COUNTY COURT AT LAW
E.V.M., A CHILD
§ CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Patrick Dickerson appeals the trial court’s order finding him in contempt for violating a previous child support order. In four issues, Dickerson argues that the trial court erroneously found him in contempt. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Contempt Orders
After finding Dickerson in contempt of court for failing, on four separate occasions, to comply with a previous child support order, the trial court ordered that Dickerson be committed to the county jail for 180 days for each failure, with each commitment running concurrently. The trial court probated the commitments, and placed Dickerson on probation until November 19, 2010, the date that the child being supported turns eighteen. Dickerson now appeals the trial court’s contempt order.
A contempt order is reviewable only by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the person in contempt is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved). Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (citing In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999)). We have no jurisdiction to consider contempt orders by direct appeal. Tex. Animal Health Comm’n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983); Ex parte Cardwell, 416 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1967); Wagner v. Warnasch, 156 Tex. 334, 339, 295 S.W.2d 890, 893 (1956).
Other Relief Sought
In Dickerson’s brief, his counsel includes a request that this court confirm the order dated April 24, 2006 by which the trial court appointed her to represent Dickerson. She expresses concern about her authority to represent Dickerson because, on June 28, 2006, the trial court signed an order vacating the April 24, 2006 order appointing her. Counsel also includes a request that we order the trial court to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee as well as the reporter’s fee for preparing the record.1 Because we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal, we take no action on counsel’s requests.
Disposition
Because we have no jurisdiction to consider contempt orders by direct appeal, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
BRIAN HOYLE
Justice
Opinion delivered July 18, 2007.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(PUBLISH)
1 Counsel states in her request that “the court of appeals ordered that the record be filed with the court of appeals and that a brief be prepared and filed by the undersigned.” The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). This court is also responsible for enforcing the briefing deadlines. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(d), 38.8(a). In this case, notices have been sent to the district clerk and court reporter regarding the deadlines for filing the record. However, no order has been entered requiring that the record be furnished without payment. Nor has any order been entered requiring appellate counsel to file a brief without expectation of payment.