You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Ex Parte Charles Brice Chapman

Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-21-00309-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 10, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

A petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed by Doug Moreland on behalf of Charles Brice Chapman, seeking relief from an alleged contempt order in a civil case. The Court of Appeals of the Seventh District of Texas denied the petition without addressing whether Moreland, a non-attorney, is permitted to file such a petition for Chapman or if a filing fee is necessary. The denial was based on the petition's failure to meet appellate rules, specifically lacking required content and not being accompanied by a necessary record. Relevant appellate rules cited include TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, which mandates proper argumentation supported by legal citations and a record, and TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7, which requires a certified copy of pertinent documents and a transcript of relevant testimony from prior proceedings. Thus, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Procedure under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

Application: The court highlighted the necessity for petitions to adhere to procedural rules requiring proper argumentation and documentation, including legal citations and relevant records.

Reasoning: Relevant appellate rules cited include TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, which mandates proper argumentation supported by legal citations and a record, and TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7, which requires a certified copy of pertinent documents and a transcript of relevant testimony from prior proceedings.

Requirements for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Application: The petition filed by Doug Moreland on behalf of Charles Brice Chapman was denied due to non-compliance with specific appellate procedural rules.

Reasoning: The denial was based on the petition's failure to meet appellate rules, specifically lacking required content and not being accompanied by a necessary record.