The opinion
Opinion issued February 27, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00941-CR
———————————
EX PARTE ARLENE ALANIZ
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1403221
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On June 14, 2013, appellant, Arlene Alaniz, was indicted on the felony
charge of injury to a child by omission as to her child, J.A.. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 22.04 (West Supp. 2013). The indictment was filed in conjunction with
ongoing parental rights termination proceedings. On July 29, 2013, Alaniz’s
parental rights were terminated as to J.A. and another child, G.A., in cause
numbers 2008-39339 and 2007-20638 in the 309th Judicial District Court for
Harris County. Alaniz filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in her felony
case, contending that criminal prosecution for the same acts which caused her
parental rights to be terminated constituted double jeopardy. The trial court held a
hearing and denied the application for writ on October 23, 2013. Alaniz timely
filed a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1), 31.1. We affirm.
Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s ruling on a pretrial writ of habeas corpus for an
abuse of discretion. See Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006); Washington v. State, 326 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2010, no pet.). In conducting this review, we view the facts in the light most
favorable to the trial court’s ruling. See Kniatt, 206 S.W.3d at 664; Washington,
326 S.W.3d at 704.
Analysis
In her sole issue on appeal, Alaniz contends that criminal prosecution for
injury to a child after the State has obtained termination of her parental rights as to
that child based on the same conduct violates federal and state constitutional
prohibitions against successive punishments for the same offense. See U.S.
CONST. amend. V; Tex. CONST. art. I, § 14. We disagree.
2
Termination of parental rights is not a punitive criminal measure; it is a civil
action, remedial in nature, designed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
children. See Perez v. State, 261 S.W.3d 760, 770 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d); Malone v. State, 864 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 1993, no pet.). The focus of a termination proceeding is not punishment,
but rather the best interests of the child. See Malone, 864 S.W.2d at 159.
Termination of parental rights does not estop the State from pursuing criminal
prosecution for the same acts which led to the termination. Id.
Conclusion
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the writ of habeas
corpus filed by Alaniz.
We affirm the judgment.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3