Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

In re Killian - No. 04-01-00598-CV, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 3212 (Tex. App. May 8, 2002)

Rule:

To uphold a sanction imposed under the court's inherent power, the record must indicate that the conduct complained of significantly interfered with the court's legitimate exercise of one of its core functions. The appellate court reviews the trial court's imposition of sanctions under an abuse of discretion standard. A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. In order to find an abuse of discretion and reverse the sanctions order, the appellate court must determine that the judge could issue but one ruling - that sanctions were not warranted.

Facts:

The 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, ordered appellant attorney John M. Killian sanctioned $ 3,000 for abusing the judicial process. Killian appealed. Killian claimed he was denied due process at the sanctions hearing because he was never afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the trial judge regarding the judge's statements to the hearing judge.

Issue:

Was attorney Killian denied due process at the sanctions hearing because he was never afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the trial judge regarding the judge's statements to the hearing judge?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

Affirming the judgment imposing sanctions, the Court of Appeals of Texas found that the hearing judge had sufficient evidence before him that a hearing was begun before the trial judge when Killian appeared. Killian testified that he appeared before the trial judge and was unsuccessful in obtaining immediate relief, and believed that there was no use going back to the trial judge. From that testimony the hearing judge was free to infer that Killian deliberately sought to avoid concluding the hearing before the trial judge, thereby depriving the trial judge of the opportunity to correct any errors in his order. Killian failed to voice an objection concerning his right to cross-examine the trial judge. Because Killian's conduct impeded the trial court's administration of justice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions. Killian’s application for habeas corpus was in error because if the other judge were sitting on behalf of the trial judge, the proper relief would have been to grant a motion for reconsideration, not a writ of habeas corpus.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class