Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 02-10-2021

Case Style:

Ex parte Amy Jackson McCaig

Case Number: 02-20-00151-CR

Judge: Elizabeth Kerr

Court: Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph W. Spence

Defendant's Attorney:


Free National Lawyer Directory


OR


Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.



Description:

Fort Worth, TX - Criminal defense attorney represented Amy Jackson McCaig with appealing the trial court’s denial of relief on her habeas application seeking supervised visitation with her infant daughter.



In February 2020, Mother was charged with second-degree-felony attempted
injury to a child with intent to cause serious bodily injury.
2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§§ 15.01(d), 22.04(a)(1). On February 4, her bail was set at $25,000 and with
conditions including prohibiting her from contacting Mary or any child under the age
of 17. Mother filed a written objection to the bond condition prohibiting her contact
with any child under 17 on the basis that it prevented her from earning income
through her employment as a hospital labor-and-delivery nurse. Nothing in the record
shows that she ever presented that objection to the trial court and obtained a ruling.
After Mother violated the bond conditions in February 2020, her bail was
raised to $50,000, with the same prohibitions on contact with minors, including Mary.
Mother posted the bond and was released from jail. Six months later, Mother applied
for habeas corpus relief, arguing for the first time that the prohibition of contact with
1
We use an alias in an effort to protect the child’s identity. See 2nd Tex. App.
(Fort Worth) Loc. R. 7.
2
The charge arose from allegations she tried to smother Mary with a pillow.
3
her children3 was oppressive. The trial court denied her request for visitation out of its
concern for Mary’s safety.
Mother now appeals that decision, but she has failed to preserve error because
she did not object to the condition4 at the time it was imposed. We, and several of our
sister courts, have held that a party who delays in objecting to a no-contact bond
condition fails to preserve error. Ex parte Layne, Nos. 12-20-00148-CR, 12-20-00149-
CR, 12-20-00150-CR, 12-20-00151-CR, 2020 WL 6788141, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Tyler
Nov. 18, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (collecting cases
and holding five-month delay failed to preserve objection to no-contact condition);
Ex parte Martinez, No. 02-15-00353-CR, 2015 WL 9598924, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Dec. 31, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (collecting
cases and holding similarly for eight-month delay); Ex parte Thompson, No. 14-04-
00731-CR, 2005 WL 363971, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 17, 2005,
no pet.) (not designated for publication) (holding similarly).
3
Mother also has a twelve-year-old daughter and requested visitation with her in
the habeas application, but Mother’s appeal concerns only the denial of her request
for visitation with Mary

Outcome: Because Mother has failed to preserve error, we affirm the trial court’s order
denying habeas relief.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: