## Facts

- Pamela Board Daniels, appearing pro se in a civil proceeding in a Harris County district court, argued with the visiting judge during the hearing.
- The judge ordered her to leave the courtroom and not return until she obtained counsel; when she did not immediately comply, the bailiff was directed to escort her out.
- As Daniels and the bailiff reached the courtroom doorway, Daniels allegedly physically attacked the court master, and a broader disturbance involving multiple people occurred.
- After the incident, the judge held a summary contempt proceeding; Daniels again proceeded without retained or appointed counsel.
- The judge found Daniels in direct criminal contempt, sentenced her to 30 days in jail, and assessed $33 in court costs (no fine).
- Daniels sought habeas corpus relief from confinement under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.06 and, after confinement began, challenged the sheriff’s refusal to award good-conduct time credit.

## Issues

1. Whether the contempt was constructive rather than direct, such that due process required additional procedures, including appointment of counsel, before confinement.
2. Whether denial of good-conduct time credit during confinement for contempt violated equal protection where the sheriff had statutory discretion over such credit.

## Decision

- Habeas relief was denied, and the contempt judgment and confinement were upheld.
- The court held the conduct constituted direct criminal contempt occurring in the presence or constructive presence of the court, permitting summary punishment.
- The court held Daniels was not constitutionally entitled to appointed counsel at the summary proceeding for direct contempt.
- The court held the sheriff’s refusal to award good-time credit did not violate equal protection absent proof of arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.

## Legal Principles

- Contempt is direct when committed in the court’s presence or constructive presence and within the judge’s personal knowledge; conduct immediately adjacent to the courtroom that disrupts proceedings may qualify.
- Direct criminal contempt may be punished summarily to maintain order and authority, without the full procedural protections required for constructive contempt.
- There is no automatic constitutional right to appointed counsel in a summary proceeding for direct criminal contempt.
- When a statute vests discretion in jail officials to grant or deny good-conduct time, equal-protection relief requires evidence that discretion was applied arbitrarily or discriminatorily, not merely that credit was denied.

## Conclusion

The court refused to disturb Daniels’s 30-day contempt confinement, concluding the incident was direct contempt allowing summary punishment without appointed counsel and that denial of good-time credit, under a discretionary scheme, did not establish an equal-protection violation without proof of discriminatory administration.


Ex parte Daniels, 722 S.W.2d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)