# In Re Reece

> Texas Supreme Court · May 27, 2011 · 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1031

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9513167

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Coy REECE, Relator
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 27, 2011
- **Citations:** 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1031; 341 S.W.3d 360; 2011 Tex. LEXIS 393; 2011 WL 2112786
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Johnson
- **Judges:** Guzman, Jefferson, Hecht, Wainwright, Medina, Green, Lehrmann, Johnson, Willett
- **Cited by:** 325 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9513167

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that civil contempt is “remedial and coercive in nature—the contemnor carries the keys to the jail in his or her pocket since the confinement is conditioned on obedience with the court’s order”
- explaining that “[s]ection 21.002 of the Government Code sets forth the only statutory framework for contempt” and that “[a]ny restrictions on this authority are found in the common law”
- emphasizing that distinction does not turn on nature of underlying litigation as civil or criminal
- stating that to be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal
- stating that objective of criminal contempt order is to punish for a “completed act [that] affronted the dignity and authority of the court”

## Opinion text

Justice JOHNSON,
dissenting.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has general original habeas jurisdiction, Tex. Const. art. V, § 5; Ex parte Thompson, 273 S.W.3d 177, 181 (Tex.Crim.App.2008), while this Court’s habeas jurisdiction is limited. Our habeas jurisdiction exists in matters where a contemnor is confined because he or she violated “an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a civil case.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.002(e).
Although our habeas jurisdiction is limited, our mandamus jurisdiction is broad. See Tex. Const, art. V, § 3(a); Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.002(a). And for the reasons the Court sets out, I agree that our broad mandamus jurisdiction encompasses the matters set out in Reece’s petition. Nevertheless, and as SB International, Inc. argues, Reece substantively petitions this Court for habeas relief. Under the circumstances I would refrain from granting mandamus relief for the reasons Justice *378 Willett sets out in part IV of his dissent, which I join.
Because I disagree that we should grant mandamus relief, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9513167. Public record. Not legal advice.