Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-21-00586-CV
Hamzah ANJUM,
Appellant
v.
Zeenat SHAMS-UL-QAMAR,
Appellee
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2020-CI-24053
Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding 1
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice (Ret.) 2
Delivered and Filed: September 27, 2023
AFFIRMED
Appellant Hamzah Anjum appeals a final protective order entered in favor of appellee
Zeenat Shams-Ul-Qamar. Anjum argues the trial court erred by not filing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the protective
order’s findings. We affirm the protective order.
1
Although the Honorable Laura Salinas signed the underlying final divorce decree, the Honorable Cynthia Maria
Chapa signed the challenged final protective order.
2
The Honorable Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice (Retired) of the Fourth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment
of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
04-21-00586-CV
BACKGROUND
Anjum filed for divorce from Shams-Ul-Qamar. At the time of filing, the couple had been
married over three years and had a one-year-old daughter. Shams-Ul-Qamar answered, filed a
counterpetition for divorce, and sought a protective order on behalf of herself and her daughter.
The trial court granted Shams-Ul-Qamar an ex parte temporary protective order and set the matter
for a final hearing.
The trial court held a six-day final hearing on Shams-Ul-Qamar’s application for a
protective order. It heard testimony from multiple witnesses, including Anjum and Shams-Ul-
Qamar, and reviewed photos of the couple, including a photo of Shams-Ul-Qamar with a bruise
on her arm. It ultimately signed a final protective order in favor of Shams-Ul-Qamar. In its order,
the trial court specifically found Anjum had committed family violence, was likely to commit
family violence, and caused Shams-Ul-Qamar serious bodily injury. The trial court further
rendered the protective order for a period of eighteen years until March 12, 2039.
Six months later, the trial court signed the final divorce decree. Anjum then filed a request
for findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the final protective order. The trial court
did not issue any findings; Anjum thereafter filed a “Notice of Past Due Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.” Other than the findings contained in the final protective order, the trial court
did not make any additional findings or conclusions. Anjum now appeals.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We begin with Anjum’s argument asserting the trial court erred because it did not issue
findings of fact and conclusions of law. According to Anjum, the trial court’s failure to issue
findings and conclusions constituted harmful error because it prevented him from knowing the
basis of the trial court’s order. He requests we abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial
court to issue findings and conclusions.
-2-
04-21-00586-CV
In general, if a party properly requests findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial
court has a mandatory duty to issue them. Zieba v. Martin, 928 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ) (citing Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768,
772 (Tex. 1989)); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 296, 297. A trial court’s failure to issue findings in
response to a timely and proper request is presumed harmful unless the record before us
affirmatively demonstrates the complaining party has suffered no injury. Ad Villarai, LLC v. Pak,
519 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Tex. 2017). “An appellant is harmed if there are two or more possible
grounds on which the [trial] court could have ruled and the appellant is left to guess the basis for
the trial court’s ruling.” Zieba, 928 S.W.2d at 786. When the trial court’s failure is harmful, we
must abate the appeal and direct the trial court to issue findings and conclusions. Ad Villarai, LLC,
519 S.W.3d at 136.
With respect to a protective order, section 85.001 of the Texas Family Code requires the
trial court to find whether “family violence has occurred” and whether “family violence is likely
to occur in the future.” TEX. FAM. CODE § 85.001(a). 3 If the protective order lasts longer than two
years, section 85.025(a-1) of the Code further requires the trial court to include in the order a
finding the respondent has either “committed an act constituting a felony offense involving family
violence against the applicant or a member of the applicant’s family or household, regardless of
whether the person has been charged with or convicted of the offense,” “caused serious bodily
injury to the applicant or a member of the applicant’s family or household,” or “was the subject of
two or more previous protective orders rendered.” Id. § 85.025(a-1).
Here, the final protective order included the following findings: “family violence has
occurred,” “family violence is likely to occur in the future,” “Respondent, Hamzah Anjum, has
3
The statute was amended in 2023, and effective September 1, 2023, the trial court is no longer required to determine
whether “family violence is likely to occur in the future.”
-3-
04-21-00586-CV
committed family violence,” and “Respondent caused serious bodily injury to the Applicant.” By
including the findings mandated by sections 85.001 and 85.025(a-1), it was not necessary for the
trial court to make additional findings. See Phillips v. Phillips, 651 S.W.3d 112, 119–20 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (holding trial court was not required to issue findings
of fact and conclusions of law in response to request because final protective order contained
findings mandated by Family Code); Peña v. Garza, 61 S.W.3d 529, 531–32 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2001, no pet.) (holding trial court did not err in not filing additional findings of fact and
conclusions of law because statutory findings recited in protective order). Accordingly, we
overrule Anjum’s issue concerning the trial court’s failure to issue findings and conclusions.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Anjum next asserts the evidence is factually and legally insufficient to support the final
protective order’s findings family violence has occurred, family violence is likely to occur in the
future, and he caused serious bodily injury to Shams-Ul-Qamar. Anjum contends Shams-Ul-
Qamar’s testimony and photo of a “small single bruise” on her arm was insufficient to support the
trial court’s findings. According to Anjum, Shams-Ul-Qamar’s testimony was conclusory and
uncorroborated, and there was no evidence he caused her serious bodily injury as defined by the
Texas Penal Code.
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the judgment and indulge every reasonable inference that would support it. City
of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 823–24 (Tex. 2005); Yang v. Cao, 629 S.W.3d 666, 670 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.). We credit favorable evidence if a reasonable fact finder
could and disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact finder could not. City of Keller,
168 S.W.3d at 807, 827; Yang, 629 S.W.3d at 670. We will sustain a legal sufficiency challenge
only when the record shows: (1) a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; (2) rules of law or
-4-
04-21-00586-CV
evidence bar the court from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the
evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a scintilla; or (4) the evidence conclusively
establishes the opposite of the vital fact. City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 810. If more than a scintilla
of evidence exists, it is legally sufficient. Yang, 629 S.W.3d at 670 (citing Haggar Clothing Co.
v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. 2005)). More than a scintilla of evidence exists when
the evidence supporting the finding rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded
people to differ in their conclusions. Id. (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 601
(Tex. 2004)).
To review a factual-sufficiency challenge, we examine the entire record, considering all
the evidence both in favor of and contrary to the challenged findings. Boyd v. Palmore, 425
S.W.3d 425, 429 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). We will overturn a finding only
when the evidence is so weak or contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence the finding
is clearly wrong and unjust. Id. (citing Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986)). The
factfinder is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the witnesses’ testimony; we may not
substitute our judgment for the trial court’s judgment simply because we might reach a different
conclusion. City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 819, 822; Boyd, 425 S.W.3d at 429.
As indicated above, under the Family Code, a trial court shall enter a protective order if, at
the close of a hearing on the application, the court finds family violence has occurred and is likely
to occur in the future. TEX. FAM. CODE §§ 81.001, 85.001. “Family violence” means an act by a
member of a family or household against another member of the family or household intended to
result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or is a threat reasonably placing
the member in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault but does
not include defensive measures to protect oneself. TEX. FAM. CODE § 71.004(1). Evidence of a
single act of family violence can support a finding of future family violence. Vinzant v. Helduser,
-5-
04-21-00586-CV
No. 01-21-00633-CV, 2022 WL 3588756, at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 23, 2022,
no pet.) (mem. op.); Boyd, 425 S.W.3d at 432 (“The statutory language . . . does not require that a
likelihood finding be based on more than one act of family violence.”). And, evidence a person
has engaged in a pattern of past threats or violent conduct will also support a finding family
violence is likely to occur in the future. In re Epperson, 213 S.W.3d 541, 543–44 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2007, no pet.).
In this case, Shams-Ul-Qamar testified Anjum began having what she described as “violent
episodes” four months after they married. She stated during these episodes, he would yell and
throw items at her, making her scared; he would also beat and choke her. She stated the first time
he attacked her, he “started yelling and he just came up and he moved all the stuff from the table.
And he took one of the stuff and hit me. And then he started like shivering and he came to just get
my neck. And I was really scared. I didn’t know what’s going on, but I tried to escape from there
and I just locked myself in.” She testified she started to keep her distance from him when he
became angry, but sometimes he would come close to her and begin choking her. According to
Shams-Ul-Qamar, Anjum had tried to choke her four times during their marriage, and despite the
fact the couple lived with Anjum’s parents, no one would help her.
She also testified after their daughter was born, Anjum’s behavior became worse. He was
angrier, and he began “forcing” her to have sex with him even though she told him no. She testified
she would try to dissuade him, but he would “start raping” her by holding her down and forcing
her to have sex. Shams-Ul-Qamar also testified due to Anjum’s violent outbursts, the couple had
to leave Anjum’s parent’s house and find an apartment. She stated she lived in the apartment “for
maybe 15, 16 days,” and Anjum often left her there alone with the baby. She testified the
apartment had very little furniture, and he bought her “very limited grocer[ies.]” When asked
about the day she decided to leave, she testified he was having a violent episode at the apartment
-6-
04-21-00586-CV
and tried to choke her, causing her to lock herself and her daughter in the bathroom. Eventually,
Anjum’s mother arrived, and Anjum left with her. Shams-Ul-Qamar testified she then contacted
a shelter, where she took refuge for herself and her daughter. She stated while at the shelter, Anjum
tried to trace her location by sending her third-party text messages with links. In addition to this
testimony, Shams-Ul-Qamar offered, and the trial court admitted, photos of the couple, including
a photo showing a bruise on her left forearm, and screenshots of the third-party text messages
attempting to track her location.
The trial court also heard testimony from Anjum, who testified he has epilepsy, which
causes him to have seizures sometimes when he is under stress. Anjum testified he takes
medication and does not regularly have seizures—only when Shams-Ul-Qamar “starts giving me
problems.” He testified he was not violent, and neither Shams-Ul-Qamar nor his daughter should
be concerned about their safety around him. Anjum’s father also testified Anjum was not violent.
He stated he lived in the house with the couple, and he never saw Anjum mistreat Shams-Ul-
Qamar. Instead, he saw Shams-Ul-Qamar treat him and his wife disrespectfully.
When viewing this evidence under the appropriate standards of review, we conclude it is
legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings “family violence has occurred”
and “family violence is likely to occur in the future.” See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 810, 822–
24; Boyd, 425 S.W.3d at 429. Here, the trial court heard testimony from Shams-Ul-Qamar
specifically describing Anjum’s violent episodes and how he choked and sexually assaulted her
multiple times. Contrary to Anjum’s assertion that this testimony is conclusory, Shams-Ul-Qamar
provided the trial court with details of Anjum’s actions by specifying how he would throw items
at her, choke her, and force her to have sex with him by holding her down.
Moreover, the trial court “did not need someone to testify directly to the likelihood of future
violence” because it could have reasonably inferred Anjum would continue to commit these acts
-7-
04-21-00586-CV
based on his pattern of past violent episodes coupled with his ongoing attempts to locate Shams-
Ul-Qamar after she left him. See Johnson v. Garcia, No. 14-18-00397-CV, 2019 WL 4021886, at
*3–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (overruling argument
testimony was conclusory because trial court could infer from evidence of past family violence
that future violence is likely to occur); see also Boyd, 425 S.W.3d at 432 (reasoning Boyd’s
continual harassment of applicant via text messages combined with past episodes of violence
supported inference Boyd would commit family violence acts in future). To the extent Anjum
contends Sham-Ul-Qamar’s testimony was uncorroborated, Anjum cites no authority requiring
corroboration of an applicant’s testimony, and we have previously held an applicant’s testimony
alone is sufficient to support findings in a protective order. See Lummus v. Lummus, No. 04-22-
00350-CV, 2023 WL 242730, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 18, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Finally, Anjum challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s
finding he caused Shams-Ul-Qamar serious bodily injury. For support, he relies on Yang v. Cao,
where the First Court of Appeals held the evidence was insufficient to support a lifetime protective
order based on serious bodily injury because there was no evidence the applicant suffered a
fractured nose. See 629 S.W.3d at 670–71.
The Family Code does not define the phrase “serious bodily injury,” but the Texas Penal
Code defines the phrase as “injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death,
serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ.” TEX. PENAL CODE § 1.07(46); see Yang, 629 S.W.3d at 670 (applying
definition of “serious bodily injury” in Texas Penal Code § 1.07(46)). In Yang, the applicant
testified Lei Yang punched her in the face and continued punching her, causing her to sustain a
swollen right eye and nose. 629 S.W.3d at 670. When asked whether she incurred a fractured
-8-
04-21-00586-CV
nose, the applicant answered negatively, and the court held evidence of a black eye and swollen
nose was legally insufficient to show Yang caused the applicant serious bodily injury. Id. at 671.
Unlike the applicant in Yang, Shams-Ul-Qamar testified Anjum choked her several times.
Texas courts have consistently recognized choking as an act that can create a substantial risk of
death regardless of whether the victim loses complete consciousness. See Comeaux v. State, No.
11-10-00308-CR, 2012 WL 2045950, at *2 (Tex. App.—Eastland June 7, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem.
op.) (providing medical testimony has been utilized by other Texas courts to illustrate that choking
is serious bodily injury); In re J.A.P., No. 03-02-00112-CV, 2002 WL 31317256, at *3 (Tex.
App.—Austin Oct. 17, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op.) (highlighting expert testimony is not required to
show choking causes substantial risk of death); Akbar v. State, 660 S.W.2d 834, 836 (Tex. App.—
Eastland 1983, writ ref’d) (emphasizing it is common knowledge choking compresses the throat,
which is a vulnerable part of the body); see also Chavez v. State, No. 04-07-00741-CR, 2008 WL
5050549, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 26, 2008, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (providing “several
of our sister courts have found that choking to a point of unconsciousness meets the requirement
for ‘substantial risk of death’”). Thus, when viewing Shams-Ul-Qamar’s testimony under the
appropriate standards of review, we conclude the trial court could have reasonably inferred
Anjum’s action of choking Shams-Ul-Qamar created a substantial risk of death, supporting the
trial court’s finding he caused her serious bodily injury. See Comeaux, 2012 WL 2045950, at *2
(“Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that the evidence is
sufficient to show that Appellant did cause serious bodily injury to the victim by choking him to
the point of unconsciousness.”); J.A.P., 2002 WL 31317256 at *3 (“Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, we hold that any rational trier of fact could have found
beyond a reasonable doubt that J.A.P.’s act of choking the complainant created a substantial risk
of death.”). We further conclude the evidence is not so weak as to make the trial court’s serious
-9-
04-21-00586-CV
bodily injury finding clearly wrong or unjust. See Boyd, 425 S.W.3d at 429. Accordingly, because
we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings, we
overrule each of Anjum’s sufficiency challenges.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s final protective order.
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
- 10 -