Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

NO. ________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN RE THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
RELATOR,
THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS,
RESPONDENT,
TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY,
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
GREG ABBOTT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
SECTION
DANIEL T. HODGE
FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
ALICIA G. KEY
RANDE K. HERRELL
MANAGING ATTORNEY
APPELLATE LITIGATION
CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION
JOHN B. WORLEY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE BAR NO. 22001480
FOR CHILD SUPPORT MAIL CODE 038-1
TITLE IV-D DIRECTOR P.O. BOX 12017
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2017
MARA FRIESEN (512) 460-6521
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FIELD OPERATIONS FAX NO. (512) 460-6612
MANAGER OF FIELD LEGAL PRACTICE
CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
ATTORNEYS FOR RELATOR,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Party Posture Counsel
The Office of the Relator / Rande K. Herrell
Attorney General Real Party John B. Worley
of Texas in Interest / Michael D. Becker
Movant (for
Deterrean Gamble
revocation of
Assistant Attorneys General
community Mail Code 038-1
supervision) P. O. Box 12017
Austin, TX 78711-2017
(in the appellate courts)
Kelley Greenwood
Assistant Attorney General
8317 Camp Bowie Blvd. West
Fort Worth, TX 76116-6319
(in the trial court)
The Second Court
of Appeals
401 W. Belknap,
Ste. 9000
Fort Worth, TX 76196
Respondent
Tracy Alan Roznosky Real Party in Blake R. Burns
Interest /
115 N. Henderson St.
Habeas Relator / Fort Worth, TX 76102-1940
Respondent
(in the appellate courts)
(to motion to
revoke community
supervision)
children)
Janet M. Putman Interested Person / Pro Se
511 E. Oakdale Co-Real Party in
Keene, TX 76059 Interest /
Interested Person
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel .............................................
Index of Authorities .....................................................
i
iv
Statement of the Case ...................................................
Statement of Jurisdiction ................................................
Issues Presented ........................................................
viii
viii
ix
General
1. When a person convicted of contempt files a habeas corpus
petition in an appellate court, at what point does the appellate
court acquire exclusive jurisdiction over the contempt action?
2. May an appellate court consider unassigned error in habeas
corpus proceedings arising from civil cases and, if so, under
what circumstances?
Applied to this Case
Tracy Roznosky, who had been put on community supervision after a
contempt conviction, was arrested after the filing of a motion to revoke his
community supervision. The court of appeals held that he had to be released
from custody because the trial court had not held a hearing on the motion to
revoke within seven days after his arrest in accordance with Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 157.216 (Vernon 2008).
1. Was this ruling an abuse of discretion because the trial court
had lost jurisdiction to hold a hearing either when the habeas
petition was filed or when the court of appeals ordered a
response to it and the record does not show that Roznosky
was incarcerated for more than seven days before either of
these events?
2. Did the court of appeals abuse its discretion by granting relief
on this ground even though Roznosky had not raised it?
ii

3. If the court of appeals did abuse its discretion, does the
Attorney General have an adequate remedy by appeal?
Statement of Facts .......................................................1
Standard of Review ......................................................2
Argument ..............................................................3
I. The trial court could not have held a hearing on the motion to revoke
community supervision because the court of appeals had exclusive
jurisdiction over the contempt action. ............................3
A. Distinction between granting the writ and granting relief on
the writ. ..............................................3
B. Exclusive jurisdiction when the writ is granted or when the
petition is filed. ........................................4
C. Exclusive jurisdiction when the writ is granted and the relator
is released on bond? .....................................6
II.
The court of appeals’s grant of relief on unassigned error was
improper. ...................................................7
Conclusion and Prayer ...................................................15
Rule 52(j) Certification ..................................................17
Index to the Record .....................................................17
Certificate of Service ....................................................18
Appendix
iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Brown v. State,
163 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, pet ref’d) ...................12, 13
Ex Parte Acker,
949 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. 1997) ..........................................9
Ex parte Banks,
769 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) ...............................11
Ex parte Barlow,
899 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 1995, orig. proceeding) .....10
Ex parte Barnett,
600 S.W.2d 252 (Tex. 1980) ..........................................6
Ex parte Bowers,
886 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding
[writ dism’d w.o.j.]) ................................................9
Ex parte Douthit,
232 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) .............................13, 14
Ex parte Field,
921 S.W.2d 430 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1996, orig. proceeding) ...............6
Ex parte Genecov,
143 Tex. 476, 186 S.W.2d 225 (1945). .................................11
Ex parte Goodman,
742 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1987, orig. proceeding) ............11
Ex parte Hargett,
819 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) ..............................3, 4
Ex parte McKay,
819 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) ...............................12
Ex parte Miller,
iv

604 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. Civ. App.–Dallas 1980, orig. proceeding) .............9
Ex parte Olson,
111 Tex. 601, 243 S.W. 773 (1922) ...................................14
Ex parte Powers,
487 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) ...............................12
Ex parte Renier,
734 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) ................................4
Ex parte Selby,
442 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) ............................12, 13
Ex parte Seymour,
688 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1985, orig. proceeding) .............15
Ex parte Shields,
550 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). ..............................11
Ex parte Stephens,
734 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1987, orig. proceeding) .........10, 11
Ex parte Tyler,
152 Tex. 602, 261 S.W.2d 833 (1953) .................................14
Ex parte Woodruff,
483 S.W.2d 951 (Tex. Civ. App.–Texarkana 1972, orig. proceeding),
writ dism’d w.o.j sub nom. Woodruff v. Woodruff, 487 S.W.2d 692
(Tex. 1972) .................................................... 9-10
Ex parte Young,
724 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1987, orig. proceeding) .............6
In re Anascavage,
131 S.W.3d 108 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) ............9
In re Coppock,
277 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2009) ..........................................8
In re Hadnot,
No. 01-06-00279-CV, 2006 WL 2506641
v

(Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] Aug. 29, 2006, orig. proceeding) ........... 8-9
In re Hammond,
155 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, orig. proceeding) ............ 4-5
In re Lausch,
177 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding) .......8
In re Mann,
162 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2005, orig. proceeding) ............11
In re Roznosky,
No. 02–11–00128–CV, 2011 WL 1743682
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 4, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ...... viii, 2
In re Straub,
No. 05–98–01806–CV, 1998 WL 908952
(Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 31, 1998, orig. proceeding)
(not designated for publication) .......................................5
King v. State,
17 S.W.3d 7 (Tex. App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) ........... 12-13
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez,
206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) ..........................................8
Saldano v. State,
70 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ................................13
State v. Sparks,
27 Tex. 705 (1864) ...............................................4, 5
United States v. Scott,
850 F.2d 316 (7 th Cir. 1988) .........................................14
United States v. Taylor,
931 F.2d 842 (11 th Cir. 1991) ........................................14
Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) ..........................................2
Woodruff v. Woodruff,
vi

487 S.W.2d 692 (Tex. 1972) ......................................10, 15
Statutes
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts.
11.01 (Vernon 2005) ................................................3
11.072 (Vernon 2005) ...............................................4
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.216 (Vernon 2008) ................. ii, ix, 2, 5, 7, 13, 15
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§
22.002(a) (Vernon 2004) .......................................... viii
22.221(d) (Vernon 2004) ............................................3
Rules of Court
Tex. R. App. P.
52.4 ...........................................................4, 5
52.8 ...........................................................4, 5
vii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case:
Trial Court:
Trial Court Disposition:
Parties in the
Court of Appeals:
Court of Appeals:
Court of Appeals’s
Disposition:
Citation of Court of
Appeals’s Opinion:
Tracy Alan Roznosky had been put on community
supervision after he was found in contempt for failure
to pay child support. Appendix (“Apx.”) A. The
Attorney General filed a motion to revoke his
community supervision, Apx. B, and the trial court
ordered the issuance of an arrest warrant for Roznosky.
Apx. C. Roznosky filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in the Second Court of Appeals alleging that he
had been arrested pursuant to this warrant and that his
confinement was unlawful. Apx. D.
Hon. Mike Sinha, 360 th District Court, Tarrant County.
The trial court ordered a warrant to be issued for
Roznosky’s arrest. Apx. C.
Tracy Alan Roznosky, relator; Hon. Mike Sinha,
respondent; The Office of the Attorney General of
Texas and Janet M. Putman, real parties in interest.
Second Court of Appeals; Per Curiam Opinion by
Chief Justice Livingston and Justices Walker and
Meier.
Habeas relief granted and Roznosky discharged from
custody.
In re Roznosky, No. 02–11–00128–CV, 2011 WL
1743682 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth May 4, 2011, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) [Apx. E].
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.002(a) (Vernon
2004) [Apx. F].
viii

ISSUES PRESENTED
General
1. When a person convicted of contempt files a habeas corpus petition in an appellate
court, at what point does the appellate court acquire exclusive jurisdiction over the
contempt action?
2. May an appellate court consider unassigned error in habeas corpus proceedings
arising from civil cases and, if so, under what circumstances?
Applied to this Case
Tracy Roznosky, who had been put on community supervision after a contempt
conviction, was arrested after the filing of a motion to revoke his community supervision.
The court of appeals held that he had to be released from custody because the trial court
had not held a hearing on the motion to revoke within seven days after his arrest in
accordance with Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.216 (Vernon 2008) [Apx. G].
1. Was this ruling an abuse of discretion because the trial court had lost jurisdiction
to hold a hearing either when the habeas petition was filed or when the court of
appeals ordered a response to it and the record does not show that Roznosky was
incarcerated for more than seven days before either of these events?
2. Did the court of appeals abuse its discretion by granting relief on this ground even
though Roznosky had not raised it?
3. If the court of appeals did abuse its discretion, does the Attorney General have an
ix

adequate remedy by appeal?
x

STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 2008, the trial court signed an order finding relator Tracy Alan Roznosky in
contempt of court for failing to pay child support as ordered. Appendix (“Apx.”) A at 6.
The trial court ordered Roznosky committed to the Tarrant County jail for 180 days. Ibid.
However, the trial court suspended the commitment and placed Roznosky on community
supervision for 120 months. Ibid. at 7.
In March 2010, the Attorney General filed a motion to revoke Roznosky’s
community supervision. Apx. B. That same month, the trial court considered the motion.
Apx. C. The court found that the motion complied with Texas Family Code section
157.214 and that the motion alleged a prima facie case that Roznosky violated a term of
his community supervision. Ibid. It issued an arrest warrant for Roznosky and set his
cash bond at $10,000.00. Ibid.
On April 1, 2011, Roznosky filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 360 th
District Court, Apx. D, which was then filed with the Second Court of Appeals on April
5, 2011. Apx. H. Although he claimed that he was confined in the Potter County Jail, he
failed to attach a certificate from the Sheriff of Potter County to prove that allegation.
Ibid. His attorney verified the petition, stating in the verification, “I have authority to
swear on Petitioner’s behalf that every statement in the foregoing petition for writ of
habeas corpus and every statement continued [sic] therein is within his knowledge and is
true and correct.” Ibid. The petition did not assert when Roznosky had been confined in

the Potter County Jail. 1
The next day, the court ordered the Attorney General to respond to the petition.
Apx. I. On April 7, 2011, Roznosky filed a motion for bail. Apx. H, J. Twenty-two
days later, the court of appeals ordered Roznosky discharged on execution and filing of a
bond of $1,000.00. Apx. K. Six days after that, the court of appeals granted habeas relief
on the ground that the trial court violated Roznosky’s due process rights by not timely
holding a hearing on the motion to revoke community supervision in accordance with
Texas Family Code section 157.216. 2
In re Roznosky, No. 02–11–00128–CV, 2011 WL
1743682 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 4, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) [Apx. E].
The Attorney General filed a motion for rehearing, which the court of appeals overruled
on June 9, 2011. Apx. L.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court should grant a petition for a writ of mandamus only if (1) the
trial court has clearly abused its discretion, and (2) the relator does not have an adequate
remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 838 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). With regard to factual issues or matters committed to the court’s discretion,
a court abuses its discretion if its decision is arbitrary and unreasonable. Id. at 839-40. A
1
Thus, there is no record support for the statement in the court of appeals’s opinion that
“Relator was taken into custody in Potter County on March 25, 2011. . . .” In re Roznosky, No.
02-11-00128-CV, 2011 WL 1743682, at *1 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth May 4, 2011, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) [Apx. E].
2
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.216 (Vernon 2008) [Apx. G].
2

court also abuses its discretion when it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. Id. at
840.
ARGUMENT
I. The trial court could not have held a hearing on the motion to revoke
community supervision because the court of appeals had exclusive
jurisdiction over the contempt action.
In a case where an appellate court has original jurisdiction over a petition for writ
of habeas corpus, the appellate court acquires exclusive jurisdiction over the contempt
proceeding at some point. Because this question may turn on the distinction between the
grant of a writ of habeas corpus and grant of relief on a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
the Attorney General first discusses this distinction.
A. Distinction between granting the writ and granting relief on the writ.
A writ of habeas corpus “is an order issued by a court or judge of competent
jurisdiction, directed to any one having a person in his custody, or under his restraint,
commanding him to produce such person, at a time and place named in the writ, and show
why he is held in custody or under restraint.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.01
(Vernon 2005) [Apx. M]; see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(d) (Vernon 2004)
[Apx. F] (legislative grant of original jurisdiction of appellate court over writs of habeas
corpus); see also Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
superseded in part by statute, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072 (Vernon 2005)
3

[Apx. M]. On the other hand, granting relief under a writ occurs after consideration of
the merits of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 868; see
also Ex parte Renier, 734 S.W.2d 349, 356-57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (Teague, J.,
dissenting).
Simply put, the grant of a writ of habeas corpus brings the petitioner before the
court; the grant of relief occurs after the court considers the merits of the petition. With
regard to a habeas corpus proceeding in the appellate court, a relator is not brought
before the court. Instead, the writ is granted when the appellate court requests a response
from the real party in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4 (court must not grant other than
temporary relief on writ before response filed or requested by court), 52.8 [Apx. N].
B. Exclusive jurisdiction when the writ is granted or when the petition is
filed.
In State v. Sparks, this Court held that when a court issues a writ of habeas corpus,
it has exclusive jurisdiction over the person who applied for the writ. 27 Tex. 705, 709
(1864). The Court quoted with approval the following from a treatise on habeas corpus:
“‘The efficacy of the original commitment is suspended by this writ while proceedings
under it are pending, and the safekeeping of the prisoner is entirely under the authority
and direction of the court issuing it, or to which the return is made.’” Id. Other cases state
that the appeals court has exclusive jurisdiction over a contempt proceeding when the
petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed. In re Hammond, 155 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tex.
4

App.– El Paso 2004, orig. proceeding) (“The Supreme Court has held that a trial court
cannot enter a new contempt judgment after a habeas proceeding has been filed in an
appellate court.”); In re Straub, No. 05–98–01806–CV, 1998 WL 908952 at *2 (Tex.
App.–Dallas Dec. 31, 1998, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication).
The court of appeals acquired exclusive jurisdiction no later than April 6, 2011.
On April 6, 2011, the court of appeals issued a writ of habeas corpus by requesting that
the Attorney General respond to Roznosky’s petition and justify Roznosky’s confinement.
See Sparks, 27 Tex. at 706, 709; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.4, 52.8 [Apx. N]. Because
the court of appeals issued the writ on April 6, 2011, it acquired exclusive jurisdiction
over the case at least by that date. See Sparks, 27 Tex. at 705. Thus, the trial court was
deprived of the jurisdiction to hold a hearing and render orders under Texas Family Code
section 157.216.
However, the court of appeals may have acquired exclusive jurisdiction as early as
April 5, 2011 when Roznosky filed his petition. Hammond, 155 S.W.3d at 227; Straub,
1998 WL 908952 at *2. Again the court of appeals’s exclusive jurisdiction over the case
deprived the trial court of the jurisdiction to hold a hearing and render orders under Texas
Family Code section 157.216.
5

C. Exclusive jurisdiction when the writ is granted and the relator is
released on bond?
Other Texas cases have stated that the issuing court acquires exclusive jurisdiction
over the habeas proceeding after the writ has been granted and the relator has been
released on bond. See, e.g., Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 256–57 (Tex. 1980)
(“When this court on January 31, 1980 granted the writ of habeas corpus and released
[relator] on bond, our jurisdiction over the relator attached to the exclusion of any other
court, including the committing court”); see also Ex parte Field, 921 S.W.2d 430, 430
(Tex. App.–Amarillo 1996, orig. proceeding) (“At the time we granted the writ of habeas
corpus and provided for relator’s release on bail, our jurisdiction over relator attached to
the exclusion of any other court, including the committing court”); see also Ex parte
Young, 724 S.W.2d 423, 424 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1987, orig. proceeding) (“First, the
trial court lost jurisdiction to release [relator] when this court granted his Motion for
Leave to File the Writ of Habeas Corpus and released him on bail”).
While the cases cited here state that the exclusive jurisdiction of the appellate court
began after both the writ was issued and the relator was released on bond, likely the
issuance of the writ gave the appellate court exclusive jurisdiction and the relator’s
release on bond was merely an attendant action to allow the relator to appear before the
court. There does not seem to be anything about releasing the relator on bond that would
trigger the court’s exclusive jurisdiction. On the other hand, when the court demands that
6

the respondent or real party in interest respond to the habeas petition, it has actively taken
up the case. This would seem to be a relevant point for the court’s assumption of
exclusive jurisdiction.
Here, the writ was issued on April 6, 2011 and the order releasing Roznosky on
bond was issued on April 29, 2011. After the court of appeals acquired exclusive
jurisdiction through the grant of the writ, the court had exclusive jurisdiction to release
the relator on bond immediately, thereby avoiding any concern about deprivation of the
relator’s liberty without due process. Instead, the 22 or 23 day delay during which the
trial court was divested of jurisdiction resulted in the inability of the trial court to convene
a hearing under Texas Family Code section 157.216. The record does not show that
Roznosky was confined for more than seven days before his habeas petition was filed
with the court of appeals or before the court of appeals requested a response to it.
Therefore, the record does not show that the trial court violated section 157.216.
II.
The court of appeals’s grant of relief on unassigned error was improper.
In his petition for writ of habeas corpus and his motion for bail, Roznosky failed to
raise the issue that he was deprived of a timely hearing as required under Texas Family
Code section 157.216. However, the court of appeals held that the trial court’s failure to
timely convene such a hearing deprived Roznoksy of his liberty without due process of
law.
“Except for fundamental error, appellate courts are not authorized to consider
7

issues not properly raised by the parties.” Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572,
577 (Tex. 2006). In the civil context, fundamental error occurs when the trial court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction or commits “an error which directly and adversely affects the
interest of the public generally, as that interest is declared in the statutes or Constitution
of our State.” Id.
In civil habeas actions, relief may be granted only when the trial court’s order was
beyond the trial court’s power to issue or the trial court deprived the relator of his liberty
without due process. In re Coppock, 277 S.W.3d 417, 418 (Tex. 2009). Under the
traditional civil conception of fundamental error, a violation of a right to due process
would not be a basis for granting relief on unassigned error. Such a violation would not
deprive the trial court of jurisdiction or, at least in the ordinary case, directly and
adversely affect the interest of the public generally. Thus, if the civil definition of
fundamental error applies in this case, the court of appeals abused its discretion by
granting relief on unassigned error.
The following appellate courts have indicated in civil habeas proceedings that a
claim based on an alleged violation of due process was waived (implying that a violation
of that kind is not fundamental error):
First Court of Appeals – E.g., In re Lausch, 177 S.W.3d 144, 154 (Tex. App.–Houston
[1 st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding) (the relator waived his due process claim by failing to
present argument in his petition in support of it); In re Hadnot, No. 01-06-00279-CV,
8

2006 WL 2506641, at *4 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] Aug. 29, 2006, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.) (the relator waived his complaint about inadequate notice of how he had
violated the underlying order by agreeing to the contempt order 3 ); Ex parte Bowers, 886
S.W.2d 346, 348 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding [writ dism’d
w.o.j.]) (the relator waived his claim that he never received notice of the contempt motion
by failing raise that issue in the trial court at the contempt hearing).
Fourth Court of Appeals – In re Anascavage, 131 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tex. App.–San
Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (“Arguably by failing to properly brief the issue
[regarding the constitutionality of the Family Code’s requirements for a civil contempt
order], Anascavage has waived review.”)
Fifth Court of Appeals – Ex parte Miller, 604 S.W.2d 324, 325 (Tex. Civ. App.–Dallas
1980, orig. proceeding) (by not appearing for a hearing as required by a show cause order,
the relator waived his complaint that he was denied due process because he was not
notified of the rescheduled hearing).
Sixth Court of Appeals – Ex parte Woodruff, 483 S.W.2d 951, 954 (Tex. Civ.
App.–Texarkana 1972, orig. proceeding) (the relator waived his complaint that the
contempt judgment did not conform to the allegations made in the pleadings by failing to
3
But see Ex Parte Acker, 949 S.W.2d 314, 315-16 (Tex. 1997). In Acker, the Court
sustained an attack on an agreed contempt order because the relator had not been admonished
about her right to counsel. Id. But there is good reason not to find a waiver where the
respondent agreed to a contempt judgment without counsel and without being advised of the
right to counsel.
9

object to the pleadings), 4 writ dism’d w.o.j sub nom. Woodruff v. Woodruff, 487 S.W.2d
692 (Tex. 1972).
Fourteenth Court of Appeals: Ex parte Crawford, 684 S.W.2d 124, 127 (Tex.
App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 1984, orig. proceeding) (the relator waived his right to
complain about any ambiguity in the divorce decree when he agreed to the contempt
order); but see Ex parte Barlow, 899 S.W.2d at 796-98 (Houston [14 th Dist.]) (although
the relator did not object to the contempt motion in the trial court, he did not waive his
complaint that the contempt motion failed to apprise him of the allegations against him).
In Ex parte Stephens, the Second Court of Appeals stated, “Stephens did not make
any special exceptions requesting further notice of the charges against him. Therefore,
we hold that Stephens’ complaint that the motion for contempt and show cause order
lacked specificity is waived, because he failed to promptly object at the trial court.” 734
S.W.2d 761, 762 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1987, orig. proceeding). However, in a later
4
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals distinguished Woodruff on the ground that Woodruff
had assumed (perhaps for the sake of argument) that rule of civil procedure 301 applied to a
contempt proceeding, an assumption the Fourteenth Court rejected. Ex parte Barlow, 899
S.W.2d 791, 796-98 (Tex. App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 1995, orig. proceeding). In Woodruff, the
relator contended that the contempt order was void under rule 301 because the “judgment did not
conform to the allegations in the pleadings. . . .” 483 S.W.2d at 954; see Tex. R. Civ. P. 301
[Apx. O]. The Texarkana court of civil appeals, assuming that the rules of civil procedure
applied, noted that those rules required objections to the pleadings and allowed issues not raised
by the pleadings to be tried by consent. Woodruff, supra. Having no record to show the contrary,
it concluded that any defects in the pleadings were waived. Id. However, if due process
violations cannot be waived in habeas actions, the Woodruff court should have looked past the
way the relator framed his complaint about the variance between the pleadings (the contempt
motion) and the contempt order and considered the unassigned (but suggested) error of whether
the trial court violated the relator’s right to due process by convicting him of contempt for
violations the contempt motion did not allege.
10

decision, the court characterized that language as dictum because the Stephens court
granted habeas relief on other grounds. In re Mann, 162 S.W.3d 429, 434 (Tex.
App.–Fort Worth 2005, orig. proceeding). The court held, contrary to Stephens, that a
relator need not specially except to a motion for contempt to complain about lack of
notice in a later habeas corpus proceeding. Id. at 433-34. The Fort Worth court also
stated in dictum in another case that it could have released the relator because of an
unassigned error, namely, that the writ of commitment did not comport with underlying
commitment order. Ex parte Goodman, 742 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth
1987, orig. proceeding). However, the court in Goodman granted relief on another
ground. Id. at 541.
Contempt actions, though, “whether such actions grow out of civil or criminal
proceedings”, are “somewhat criminal in nature and the procedure therein should
therefore conform as nearly as practicable to criminal procedure.” Ex parte Genecov, 143
Tex. 476, 480, 186 S.W.2d 225, 227 (1945). In the criminal sphere, habeas corpus lies
only to review jurisdictional defects or denials of fundamental or constitutional rights. Ex
parte Banks, 769 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Ex parte Shields, 550 S.W.2d 670,
675 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). Habeas relief will be granted to remedy only “those
constitutional errors, at least those pursuant to the state constitution, that are so
exceptional or fundamental that they are not susceptible to a harm analysis, or that so
fatally infected the entire punishment proceeding as to render the resultant sentence
11

invalid and judgment void.” Ex parte McKay, 819 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Tex. Crim. App.
1990).
Courts in criminal habeas cases have also held that due process claims can be
waived. In Ex parte Powers, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied a claim in a habeas
proceeding that the jury selection process had been racially discriminatory on the ground
that the relator had waived that issue at trial by consenting to the exclusion of African-
Americans. 487 S.W.2d 101, 103-04 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). Even more to the point, in
Ex parte Selby, the Court of Criminal Appeals found in a habeas proceeding that relator
waived his claim that he was unconstitutionally deprived of the right to call a witness
because the he had not presented an offer of proof to show what the witness’s testimony
would have been. 442 S.W.2d 706, 707-08 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The court also
found that the relator had waived a claim of jury misconduct because he had not filed a
timely motion for new trial. Id. at 708. The court stated, “The matter cannot be raised on
appeal where a motion for new trial was not filed within ten days after the verdict. A
fortiori, it cannot be raised years later in a collateral attack on the judgment.” Id.
Most due process issues that are not presented, or that are improperly presented, to
an appellate court in a direct criminal appeal are waived. See Brown v. State, 163 S.W.2d
818, 822-23 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, pet ref’d) (because the appellant’s briefing did not
assert that pre-indictment delay violated the due process clause, that issue was not before
the court); King v. State, 17 S.W.3d 7, 23 (Tex. App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 2000, pet.
12

ef’d) (the appellant waived error by failing to brief his argument that the denial of his
motion for severance violated his right to due process). Since issues that are waived for
purposes of a criminal appeal are also waived in a criminal habeas action, see Selby, 442
S.W.2d at 708, most due process issues will be waived in a criminal habeas proceeding if
they are not raised or are improperly raised. See Brown, 163 S.W.3d at 822-23; King, 17
S.W.3d at 23.
However, in criminal appeals, there are two “relatively small categories of errors”
that an appellant need not present to the trial court to raise on appeal. Saldano v. State, 70
S.W.3d 873, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). These are errors that a defendant can waive
only by his own affirmative action, such as denial of the right to counsel or the right to a
jury trial, and “absolute, systemic requirements” such as the lack of jurisdiction or
compliance with the Texas Constitution’s Separation of Powers clause, which can never
be waived. Id. It might be presumed that in the criminal law these are also the only kinds
of errors that an appellate court can address when the appellant has not raised them at all.
However, any “absolute, systemic requirement” based merely on a statutory mandate
would not be cognizable as a basis for relief in a criminal habeas action. See Ex parte
Douthit, 232 S.W.3d 69, 71-75 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Under the criminal conception of fundamental error, the court of appeals was not
warranted granting relief in this case on the basis of an error Roznosky did not raise. A
mere violation of a statute, in this case Family Code section 157.216, is no basis for
13

habeas relief either in the civil or the criminal realm. See Ex parte Tyler, 152 Tex. 602,
604, 261 S.W.2d 833, 834 (1953); Ex parte Olson, 111 Tex. 601, 610, 243 S.W. 773, 777
(1922); Ex parte Douthit, 232 S.W.3d at 71-75. (This point is discussed more thoroughly
in the Attorney General’s brief on the merits in In re Luebe, No. 10-0255, at pages 19-
22.) A violation of section 157.216 can be a basis for habeas relief only if it is also a
violation of Roznosky’s right to due process.
Under the conception of fundamental error that applies in criminal appeals, the
nature of the due process violation would be controlling. Is it a violation that the relator
could have waived only by his own affirmative action? Is it a violation that involves an
“absolute, systemic requirement?” Or is it the normal kind of error that a relator must
raise for the court to consider?
In deciding which of these would be the case in this proceeding (assuming that the
standard for fundamental error in criminal appeals applied), one important consideration
would have to be the nature of the harm to the relator. The harm was not that Roznosky
did not get a hearing on the motion to revoke his community supervision within seven
days. Cf. United States v. Taylor, 931 F.2d 842, 848 (11 th Cir. 1991) (a one-year delay in
holding a hearing on the revocation of criminal probation was not a violation of due
process); United States v. Scott, 850 F.2d 316, 319-21 (7 th Cir. 1988) (a 13-month delay
between a criminal probationer’s arrest and the hearing on revocation of his probation
was not a due process violation). The harm would be that he was incarcerated and was
14

not given a prompt hearing while he continued to be incarcerated. See Ex parte Seymour,
688 S.W.2d 139, 140-41 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1985, orig. proceeding). Because
Roznosky had not raised this issue in the court of appeals either in his petition or his
motion for bail (Apx. D, J), he failed to alert the court of appeals of the need to release
him on bond immediately in order to avoid the harm of him having to wait for a hearing
while still being in jail. By not raising the issue, Roznosky likely brought the harm on
himself. Given these circumstances, Roznosky’s failure to raise this issue should be
considered waived even if the definition of fundamental error in criminal appeals were
applied to civil habeas proceedings.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
The court of appeals clearly abused its discretion when it found that Roznosky was
entitled to release because the trial court had not conducted a hearing within the seven
days required by Family Code section 157.216. The Attorney General cannot appeal from
a habeas corpus decision and so does not have an adequate remedy by appeal. See
Woodruff, 487 S.W.2d at 692 (the Texas Supreme Court does not have appellate
jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings originating in courts of appeals). For these
reasons, the Attorney General requests that the Court issue a writ of mandamus ordering
the court of appeals to (1) vacate its opinion and judgment and (2) deny habeas relief and
remand Roznosky to the custody of the Tarrant County sheriff or, in the alternative,
consider the other issues raised in Roznosky’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
15

Respectfully submitted,
GREG ABBOTT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
DANIEL T. HODGE
FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
ALICIA G. KEY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
CHILD SUPPORT
TITLE IV-D DIRECTOR
MARA FRIESEN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FIELD OPERATIONS
MANAGER OF FIELD LEGAL PRACTICE
RANDE K. HERRELL
Managing Attorney
Appellate Litigation Section
SBN 09529400
MICHAEL D. BECKER
Assistant Attorney General
Appellate Litigation Section
SBN 02015760
DETERREAN GAMBLE
Assistant Attorney General
Appellate Litigation Section
SBN 24062194
16

________________________________
JOHN B. WORLEY
Assistant Attorney General
Appellate Litigation Section
SBN 22001480
Child Support Division
Mail Code 038-1
P.O. Box 12017, Capitol Sta.
Austin, Texas 78711-2017
Phone: (512) 460-6521
Fax: (512) 460-6612
ATTORNEYS FOR REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST, THE OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
RULE 52(J) CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the foregoing Petition for a Writ of
Mandamus and have concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by
competent evidence included in the record.
________________________________
John B. Worley
Assistant Attorney General
INDEX TO THE RECORD
The record in this case consists of Appendix Tabs A-E and H-L.
17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this petition is being served on the
parties to the case or their counsel of record listed below by United States Mail, certified,
on July 14, 2011.
____________________________
John B. Worley
Assistant Attorney General
The Second Court of Appeals
c/o Debra Spisak, Clerk
Tim Curry Criminal Justice Ctr.
401 W. Belknap, Ste. 9000
Fort Worth, TX 76196
Respondent
Blake R. Burns
115 N. Henderson St.
Fort Worth, TX 76102-1940
Attorney for Real Party in Interest, Tracy Alan Roznosky
Janet M. Putman
511 E. Oakdale
Keene, TX 76059
Interested Person (Mother of the Child and Custodial Parent), Pro Se
cc:
Tina Campbell
Kelley Greenwood
Assistant Attorneys General
18

No. -----
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN RE THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
The Office of the Attorney General ofTexas
Relator,
The Second Court ofAppeals,
Respondent,
Tracy Alan Roznosky,
Real Party in Interest.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

INDEX TO ApPENDIX
Appendix
Tab
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
K
L
M
N
o
Order Enforcing Support Obligation and Concerning License
Suspension.
Motion to Revoke Community Supervision and Suspend License.
Order for Arrest Warrant.
Roznosky's Petition for Habeas Corpus.
Opinion and Judgment ofthe Court ofAppeals.
Texas Government Code provisions cited in the petition.
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.216 (Vernon 2008).
Case Search Results from Case # 02-11-00128-CV found on the
Second Court ofAppeals website.
Order ofthe Second Court ofAppeals requiring the real party in
interest to respond to the petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus.
Order ofthe Second Court ofAppeals granting bond.
Order ofthe Second Court ofAppeals denying the Attorney
General's Amended Motion for Rehearing.
Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure provisions cited in the petition.
Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure cited in the petition.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 301.

~.
~oRi WoRTH SOUTH
NCP Name:
CPName:
OAGNumber:
TRACY ALANROZNOSKY
JANET M PUTMAN
4673524241
CAUSE NUMBER 360·253747-97
IN THE INTEREST OF
§ IN THE 360THDISTRICT COURT
ACHILD'
§ OF
§ TARRANTCOUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER ENFORCING SUPPORT OBLIGATION
11Cj
AND CONCERNING LICENSE SUSPENSION
On thet:>

CHILDREN
The following child is the subject ofthis suit:
Name
Sex
DOB
SSN
Birthplace
M
7/20/1988
FORT WO~TH> TX
PRIOR ORDER
The Court FINDS that on 11212001 the Court ordered TRACY ALANROZNOSKY to pay current child support of
$267.00 monthly, beginning 2/112001 and monthly thereafter.
JUDGMENT ON ARREARS
The Court FINDS and CONFIRMS that TRACYALANROZNOSKYis in arrears in the amount of
$~/;&f,~ q as of l'-;10 -06 .This includes all unpaid child support and any
balance owed on previously confirmed arrearages or retroactive support judgments as ofthe specified date.The judgment
. .
for t~is amount is a cumulativejudgment.
A judgmentis granted against TRACY ALANROZNOSKYand in favor ofthe OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY
GENERAL in the amount o£.$ i ~( fIB.z~C; ') with interest as provided by the law of: ,
~ ofTexas, at the rate of6% per annum;
( ) the State, --', that issued the controlling order;
for collection and distribution according to law.
The Court ORDERS TRACY ALANROZNOSKY, Obligor, to pay said child support judgm~nr-6Ypayill.g
$ on or before tire dtty of • aRG by paying .
$ 637ZJ O~ each month begitming theg day of-I1{)J)i11l1lJii? ,~ payable on or
before that date and on or before the same day ofeach month thereafter Wltil the arrearage is paid in full, or on the
tennination ofCruTent support for any child the subject ofthis suit.
_
IfTRA CYALANROZNt)SK'1. has not· aId the Judgment in fun by tlIe dale his ClUlent
ends, the Court 0
said judgment by
elude such payments, but nothing herein shall prohibit the use ofother collection met 0
NOTICE TO OBLIGOR
11. The wit Iding order autho . in shall
Past due support is not an installment debt and the entire judgment is now due and'owing. The OFFICE OF TIIE
ATIORNEY GENERAL may take whatever enforcement remedies deemed necessary including any remedies required
by federal or state laws to collect this judgment, even ifregular periodic payments on this judgment are being made.
S au
ORDERENFORClNG SUPPORT OBLIGATION AND CONCERNING LICENSE SUSPENSION

0.
TRACYALANROZNOSKYis placed on notice that should he fail to pay current child and medical support, or
toward the arrearage as ordered herein, the OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL may pursue an action to suspend
any or all licenses he may have.
Pursuant to Texas Family Code § 157.269, the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter until all current support
and all support arrearages, including interest and any applicable fees and costs, have been paid.
PAYMENT OF SUPPORT, ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
The Court ORDERS TRACYALANROZNOSKYto pay all support to the registry of~e court:
Texas Child Support Disbursement Unit
POBox 659791
San Antonio, TX 78265-9791
for distribution according to law. All payments shall be identified by:
Obligor name TRACY ALANROZNOSKY,
Obligee nameJANETM PUTMAN,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL case nwnber 4673524241,
cause number 360-253747-97. and
the date on which the withholding occurred.
The Court FINDS that TRACYALANROZNOSKYshould pay attorney fees for the enforcem~ntofchild support
obligation directly to the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL..
The Court GRANTS JUDGMENT against TRACY
ALANROZNOSKYand in favor of the OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL in the amount of
$ i DocV and ORDERS him to pa; the attorney fees on orbeforethe· I-gj .day of
M f!A1
,2IJO7directly to:
Texas Child Support Disbursement Unit
POBox 245993
San Antonio, TX 78224~5993
The OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL may enforce this order for attorney fees in the agency's own
name. _ ..,I 0 .
The Court ORDERS TRACYALANROZNOSKYto pay court costs
$~tothe District Clerk of
TARRANT County, Texas, on or before the'22/- day of ~d~~tlyto: .
THOMAS A. WILDER
TARRANT COUNTY LAW CTR
200 E. WEATHERFORD ST
FORT WORTJ:I, TX 76196
INCOME WITHHOLDING
The Court ORDERS, pursuant to Texas Family Code Chapter 158, any employer ofTRACYALANROZNOSKY,
current or subsequent, to withhold income from the disposable earnings ofTRACYALANROZNOSKY for the child's
support as set out in the ORDERJNOTICE TO WrnrnOLD INCOME FOR CHILD SUPPORT. Any income withheld
from TRACYALANROZNOSKY's disposable earnings for child support and paid according to this order shall be credited
OROER ENf·ORCING SUPPORT OBLlGATlON AND CONCERNING LICENSE SUSPENSION

('\ ,~
against his child support obligation, bti, shall not discharge any ofhis child SUppOl. vt>ligation that exceeds the amount so
credited.
The Court finds TRACY ALANROZNOSKY is liable for all court ordered child support, regardless ofthe amounts
withheld by any employer or entity, and TRACY ALANROZNOSKY is ordered to pay any court ordered child support not
withheld by any employer or entity directly to the Texas Child Support Disbursement Unit as ordered.
In addition, the Court further ORDERS any employer of TRACYALANROZNOSKY, current or subsequent, to
withhold income from the disposable earnings of TRA CYALAN ROZNOSKY for the payment ofcourt ordered attorney
fees.
The Court ORDERS the Clerk ofthe Court, upon request, to cause a certified copy ofthe ORDERJNOTICE TO
WITHHOLD INCOME FOR CHll.,D SUPPORT, with a copy ofTexas Family Code Chapter 158 attached, to be
delivered to TRACY ALANROZNOSKY's" employer.
The Court ORDERS TRACY ALANROZNOSKYto provide any subsequent employer with a copy of the
ORDERlNOTlCE TO WITHHOLD INCOME FOR CHILD SUPPORT.
STATUTORY WARNINGS
FAlLURE" TO OBEY A COURT ORDERFOR CHILD SUPPORT ORFOR POSSESSION OF OR
ACCESS TO A CHILD MAY. RESULT IN FURTHER LITIGATION TO ENFORCE THE ORDER,
INCLUDING CONTEMPT OF COURT. A FINDING OF CONTEMPT MAY BE PUNISHED BY
CONFINEMENT IN JAIL ;FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS t A FINE OF UP TO 5500 FOR EACH VIOLATION t
AND A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COURT COSTS.
FAILURE OF A PARTY TO MAKE A CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT TO THE PLACE AND IN THE
MANNER REQUIRED BY A COURT ORDERMAY RESULT IN THE PARTY NOT RECEIVING CREDIT
FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT.
FAILURE OF A PARTY TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT DOES NOT JUSTIFY DENYING THAT PARTY
COURT-ORDERED POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD. REFUSAL BY A PARTY TO ALLOW
POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD DOES NOT JUSTIFY FAlLURE TO PAY COURT-ORDERED
CHILD SUPPORT TO THAT PARTY.
EACH PERSON WHO IS A PARTY TO THIS ORDERIS ORDERED TO NOTIFY EACH OTHER
PARTY t THE COURT, AND THE STATE CASE REGISTRY OF ANY CHANGE IN THE PARTY'S CURRENT
RESIDENCE ADDRESS, MAILING ADDRESS t HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER, NAME OF EMPLOYER,
ADDRESS OF EMPLOYMENT, DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER,"AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBER. THE
PARTY IS ORDERED TO GIVE NOTICE OF AN INTENDED CHANGE IN ANY OF THE ~QUIREl>
INFORMATION TO EACH OTHER PARTY, THE COURT t AND THE STATE CASE REGISTRY ON OR
BEFORE THE 60TH DAY BEFORE THE INTENDED CHANGE. IF THE PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR
COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN OF THE CHANGE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PROVIDE 60-DAY NOTICE,
THE PARTY IS ORDERED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE CHANGE ON ORBEFORE THE FIFTH DAY
AFTER THE DATE THAT THE PARTY KNOWS OF THE CHANGE. ,
THE DUTY TO FURNISH TillS INFORMATION TO EACH OTHER PARTY, THE COURT t AND
THE STATE CASE REGISTRY CONTINUES AS LONG AS ANY PERSON, BY VIRTUE OF THIS ORDER, IS
UND~R AN OBLIGATION TO PAY CHll..D SUPPORT OR ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS
TOACHILD. .
FAILURE BY A PARTY TO OBEY THE ORDER OF TillS COURT TO PROVIDE EACH OTHER" "
PARTY, THE COURT AND, THE STATE CASE REGISTRY WITH CHANGE IN THE REQUIRED
INFORMATION MAY RESULT IN FURTHER LITIGATION TO ENFORCE THE ORDER, INCLUDING
CONTEMPT OF COURT. A FINDING OF CONTEMPT MAY BE PUNISHED BY CONFINEMENT IN JAIL
FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS t
A FINE OF UP TO $500 FOR EACH VIOLATION, AND A MONEY JUDGMENT
FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COURT COSTS.
Lf
PAG"j- OF.!1-
ORDER ENFORCING SUPPORT OBUGATION AND CONe_INGUeE",SUS..N'''ON

NOTICE TO THE STATE CASE REGISTRY
As is required by the preceding section> any change ofa party's residential address, mailing address, home
telephone number> name ofemployer, address ofemployment, drivers license munber, and work telephone nwnber are to
be reported by mail to the:
State Case Registry
Contract Services Section
MC046S
P.O. Box 12017
Austin, TX 78711-2017
in addition to reporting the change(s) to the other parties and the Court.
REVIEW
Pursuant to 42 USC 666(a)(lO), a parent subject to a child support order, at least every three years, has the right
to request a review ofthe ordered child support amounts by contacting the CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ofthe
OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL.
ORDER ENFORCING SUPPORT OBLIGAnON AND CONCERNING LICENSE SUSPENSION

- - LICENSE SUSPENSION MOTION
Having heard the evidence and argument ofyarties~ the Court FINDS that the Movant's requesNo suspend any
license or permit ofTRACY ALANROZNOSKY. /5 tAJJ 'l..ft.d1a«J11.-tlj-~ ~
ORDER ENFORCING SUPPORT OBLIGATION AND CONCERNING LICENSE SUSPENSION

---..,
PUNITIVE CONTEMPT
The Court FINDS that TRACY ALANROZNOSKY failed to pay court-ordered child support as follows:
ORDERED DUE DATE ORDERED AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID
Count 1 1- f .r01 267.00 0.00
Count 2d-/ "'02 267.00 0.00
count3J--'i-01 267.00 0.00
Count 4 ?(--I -01 267.00 0.00
The Court FINDS that TRACYALANROZNOSKY could have timely paid the above specified child support in
full and that he is guilty ofa separate act ofcontempt ofcourt for each specified failure to do so.
The Court ORDERS TRACY ALANROZNOSKY committed to the county jail for 180 days for each separate
act ofcontempt, said commitments to run concurrently.
COERCIVE CONTEMPT
The Court FINDS that TRACYALANROZNOSKY can pay the amounts listed below and ORDERS him
committed to the county jail until he pays:
1.
2.
3.
$ ~ in child support arrearages;
$ in attorney fees; and
$ in court costs.
COMMITMENT
The Court ORDERS the Sheriff of TARRANT County to arrest TRACYALANROZNOSKY and conunit him to the
, .
county jail as ordered above, said commitments to fWl concurrently.
T..he Court ORDERS bjm to appear before this CO~lrt at o'clock__.m., on the day of
_ _______, ~gitl conunitment to the countyjail.
~ .
ORDER ENFORCING SUPPORT ODUGAnON AND CONCt:RNING LiCENSE SUSPENSION

. .f'-, ~USPENDED C.OMM~TMENT~ (J. '
The Court suspends'the commitm~tand place~ ~ I •• ',,·b2i/tUl. hereinafter
referred to ~ Respondent, on community suPerVision "fOJ months from the date ofthis
order. As terms and conditions ofcommunity supervision. Respondent is ORDERED to:
]. Pay current child support as ordered•.including hea:lth·ements. jnsurance
.......,. "'-"'--- _._- - -jJJeinium-payment-s-,anEl-med1Gal---&\l~Jt-payments...._.. _~---,--~_. _
2. Pay the' child support arrearage as 'ordered herein. .
. 3. Pay tlrrough the child support registry, as additional child suPPort arrearage payments,
100% ofany windfall mo~ies (.or the total amount ofthe .child support arrearage,
~hj~heve~ is less.) Rewondent J:eceive.s from any source not later than the third day
(
I
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
foilowing receipi p!smd Windfall mprues. Windfall monIes i'neludes'but is not limited to
the.foilowing: 'gambling and lottery proceeds. legal settlements~ mon'etary gifts. '
inh.erilaTICes. and'personal inj~settlements. .
Pay court costs as ordered' herein.
Deliver to any subsequent employer a copy ofllie wage withholding order authorized
-·-herein:
Report to the Community Supervision Counselor as directed by the Conuminity
SuperVision -Counselor: at least once each month if employed full-time OT a~ least once
each week ifnot employed fun-tj~e. .
Report all changes in job status. employer's name, emp]oye:r's'address, home address. and
home telephone number to the Community Supervision Counselor. the Office of the
Attorney General. and th'e custodial conservator. within seven days ofany change.
Pennit-the-Co~unity Supencis.ioD Gounselor to v.isit Responeent's ~ome, work. or
elsewhere, and permit fue Community Supervision Counselor to contact present ana
prospective employers iI;J sucn a manner as is reasonable and necessary·to the
enforcement -ofthis' order.
Provide-proofto tbe Community S'upervisien..CounseloJ 3STequested-regarding
compliance with all temlS of this order.
A ttend. -participate ·in. and complete- the FOCUS program andior any employmenl-relQted
program-ori'llie partiCUlar dates and in the partjcular manner as directe~ by the
Community'S1:1pervision Counselor. c; , ~,/)C)
p.a~!:toffl~S:.-f-ees::-in--~e ~eWlt of$1120 on oJ-befC?Xe,L-:if. ' .l.!I-!=f ..
directly to the 'Offi~e ofthe Attorney Genera ) TexaS-€limfStlppo-~B)so'llMemGnr~tJnit,
P:0. Box 24599\ San Antonio" Texas 78224:'5993.
-1-2. Pay ~ ,. at-tl:le-l'ate of$ ~~ 0)) tll; pm tico)at dal'es:mrdjrtthtr..
particular manner as directed b ~lJperv)sion Counselor, to reimburse
TarraD1 Coun Qmpensation'paid to Respondent's court-appointed cromsel. Each
shaH be b cashier's check or money order, made payable to the Tarrant County
U ItO!. with the cans er.
oms/days/weekends in Tarrant County Jail.
~ Obtain counseling on financial planning. budget management, conflict r.esolution,
parenting skills, and/or a~cohol and drug abuse, on the parUcuJar dates and in the
, , .. particular,.manner,. as. dil:e_cJe~Lby.1h.~LC.QPm1U)Ji.ty. .S!!~ervision Coun~eJor.
~. Attend all court conHicnces as scheduled by the co~~iYsup~rvj~i"o~'Col)nseJor
/ andlor the Court.
16.
ORDER ENFORCING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Court;
INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TEXAS FAMll..Y CODE § 105.006 .
Cause Number: 360-253747-97
Name:
Residence Address:
Employer:
Employment Address:
360THDISTRICTCOURT TARRANTCounty, Texas
PRIMARY JOINT MANAGING or MANAGING CONSERVATOR INFORMATION:
Mailing Address (ifdifferent):
Social Security Number:
Driver License Number:
Home Phone:
JANETM PUTMAN
537NWNEWTONDR
BURLESON TX 76028-3725-37
08771943
(817)295-5939
SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERSINC
1155 VALLEY STSTE 400
SEAlTLE WA 98109-4426-55
(817)558-9546
Work Phone:
JOINT MANAGING or POSSESSORY CONSERVATOR INFORMATION:
Name:
TRACYALANROZNOSKY
Residence Address:
2919NW22ND ST
FORT WORTH TX 76106-4822-19
Mailing Address (ifdifferent):
Social Security Number:
Driver License Number: 09495758
Home Phone:
Employer:
Employment Address:
(817)624-4607 A'_G1
uN6z. c'6N-t V(1 PEs5
r-O.-:O-~* -IoJ - --
WorkPhone: P();!I)e!2., TX r]/~S Cf '.
Expected termination date ofobligation to pay child supportan~forders fir possession of, or access to, a child (date of
expected emancipation ofall minors):
The Cou :
Uh
as not
ordered that special restrictions be placed on the distribution ofthis information pursuant to Texas Falnily Code
§ l05.006(c), to wit:
ORDER ENFORCING SUPPORT OBLIGATION AND CONCERNING LICENSE SUSPENSION

ASSOCIATE JUDGE'S I'ROI'OSED ORDER.
'The undergjgn.ed:t;neela hearing inthis ~e and recolIlD1ends the propo~ orderbe adopted as the
judgment ofthe COUl1. N -
COUI.t was given. 10 the 'es participating in uy.hearlng.
ofthe substance o[~proposed ordor and oftberequk for de novo to !be referring
Signed this 1.-Of day of ct--ttt-"71:_o--,--r--::-:-:-:._~_
ASSOCIA~EPRESIDJNG
ORDERADQP11NG ASSOCIATE JUDG£'S PROPQSED ORDER
The Court ':JY~ adOptS the .
Signed this day of -+-i"""""l"
...------...
-......J!JlAJ'll:'. CO • SEliN: 00
ROGER SHIFLET ~ SBN: 0
SUSAN SEAWRlGlIT •58; 794614
ANGELA OILULAND· SBN: 05141050
ASSISTANT ATfORNEV GENERAL
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
CHILD SUPPORT UNIT 0408E
8317 CAM:P BOWlB BLVD WEST
FORT WORTH. TX 16IHi·(j319
TeLephou¢ No. (817)9~7197
TQU free 1(800)687--8240
FAX No, (817)926-0522
.... ~-,~ .OSKY. Obligor

NCP Name: TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY
CP Name: JANET M PUTMAN
OAG Number: 4673524241
LAC: MRVL
CAUSE NUMBER 360-2S3141~97
IN TIlE INTEREST OF
A CHILD
§ IN THE J6Q JUDICIAL
§
Of
§ TARRA1VTCOUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION TO REVOKE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
AND TO SUSPEND LICENSE
1. The OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, pursuant to Texas Family Code Chapter 231, files thi s pleading
for which discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 2 ofRule 190, Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure.
JURISDICTION
2. This Court has continuingjurisdiction ofthe child the subject oflhis suit because of prior proceedings.
3. The following child is the subject cfthis suit:
CHJLDREN
l'IJ:unt
Sex
00'8
Birthplace
A
M
7aW1988
FORT WORTH, TX
No property, other than personal effects, is owned by any child the subject ofthis suit.
PERSONS ENTITLED TO NonCE
4. The child resides with JANET M PUTMAN", the mother ofthe child. The OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL requests the issuance and service ofprocess on this person in accordance with the attached service
information sheet.
5. TRACY ALANROZNOSKYis theJather ofthe child. The OFfICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL requests
the issuance and service ofprocess on this person in accordance with the attached service infonnation sheet.
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
6. On J1/13/2008 the Court signed an order that found TRACYALAN ROZNOSK.Yin coot.empt ofC

-
VIOLATIONS OF T:ERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF COMMUNlTY SUPERVISION
7. EXHIBIT B, attached and incorporated by reference is a true and correcr copy ofthe payment record, shows
TRACYALANROZNOSKYhas not followed the terms ofcommunity supervision by timely paying current child support
and tbe child support arrearage as required.
8. The Court should revoke the community supervision and order TRACYALANROZNOSKY committed to the
county jail.
9. The Court should order TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKYto appear and respond to this motion.
PRIOR CHILO SUPPORT ORDER
10. On 1/212001 the Court ordered TRACYALANROZNOSKYto pay current child support of$267.00 monthly~
beginnjng 2///2001 ~ and momh/y thereafter. The amount and frequency of TRACYALANROZNOSKY's child support
obligation hils changed.
CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE
11. TRACYALAN ROZNOSKY failed to pay court ordered child support as follows:
a. Prior arrears as of913012008 $43,685.69
b. Support accrued since 913012008 $0.00
c. Interest accrued since 913012008 $2,345.55
d. Support paid since 9130/2008 $3,341.69
e. Total arrearage as of912112009 $42,683.55
12. TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKYhas repeatedly violated the chi\d support order and the OPFlCE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL anticipates that he will similarly continue to violate the order.
JUDGMENT ON ARREARS
13 . The Court sh()uId confinn and enterjudgment fur all support llrrearage and accrued interest as of the hearing
date. The Court should order payment and income withholding to liquidate the judgment pursuant to Texas Family Code
Chapters 157 and 158.

LICENSES OR PERMITS
14. TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY, social security number4 holds the following license or licenses issued
by the respective licensing authorities:
Type ofLicense
License No.
Licensing AuthQrity
CDL
0949575&
TEXAS DRIVERS LICENSE
LICENSE SUSPENSION
15. TRACYALANROZNOSKY has been ordered to pay child support, owes overdue child support in an amount equal
to or greater than the total support due fo .... three months unde .... the support ordert has been given an opportunity to pay the
overdue child support by com plying with a court ordered or agreed repayment schedu le and has failed to compIy with the
repayment schedule. The agreed repayment sthedule, ifany, is auached as EXlllBIT C. TRACY ALANROZNOSKY's
arrears are equal to, the total support due for three months under the support order. All statutory
prerequisites having been established, Movant requests the Court to set a hearing on this matter and then enter an order
suspending any license or permit issued to TRACYALANROZNOSKYthat is identified in this Motion.
WITHHOWING FROM EARNINGS FOR SUPPORT
16. The Court should order aU support withheld from disposable earnings pursuant to Texas Family Code § 158.006.
The Court should order all payments ofsupport processed pursuant to Texas Family Code Chapter 231 for dIstribution
according to law. If appropriate, the Court should order TRACYALANROZNOSKYto post a bond or security.
REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
17. TRACYALANROZNOSKY has in his possession documents that will show the nature and extent ofhis ability to
pay child support. The OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, pursuant to Rule 196, Texas Rules ofClvil
Procedure, "?quests him to produce and pennit the OFFICE OF TIlE ATTORNEY GENERAL to inspect and copy the
originals) Or true copies, ofthe follOWing documents in his possession, custody or control: (a) any license issued by or in
the state ofTexas to TRACYALANROZNOSKr, including. but not limited to, his Texas Drivers License. (b) his IRS
fedeml tax returns for the past two years; (c) all payroll stubs, vouchers, records ofcommissions and all other written
records or evidence ofincorne received by him within the ltiSt six months, (d) the most recent Social Security
Administration Form SSA-7005. showing hi~ income history, sent to him three months before his last birthday, (e)
statements ofaccounts for all checking Or saving accounts in which he has held an interest within the last six months,. (f)
all evidence (policies, premium schedules~ records of premiums paid, ete.) ofhealth insurance available at his place of
employment that may provide coverage for dependent children, (g) oopies ofloan applications made within the last six
months,'(h) current statement ofbenefits and account balances for all retirement, pension, or profit-sharing plans in
which the respondent has accrued or may a

accrued or may accrue benefits) regardless ifsuch benefits ha.ve vested. The OFFICE OF THE. ATIORNEY GENERAL
requests production ofthe specified docwnents at:
The Office ofthe Attorney General
CHILD SUPPORT UNIT 090SE
8317 CAMP BOWlE BLVD WEST'
FORT WORTH. TX 761I6~319
on or before 3:00 p.m. on the 50tb day following the date ofservice ofthis request..
AITORNEY FEES AND COSTS
18. The Court should order TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKYto pay reasonable attorney fees and all other costs ofthis
proceeding.
PRAYER
The OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL prays that the Court grant all relief requested herein. The
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL prays for general relief.
Respectfully subm itted,
Greg Abbott
Attorney General ofTexas
Andrew Weber
First Assistant Attornev General
. . ~
FER RD N - SBN: 0 57275
DIANE CONJNE - SBN: 099 4500
ROGER SHU-LET - SBN: 00790021
SUSAN SEAWRIGHT· SBN: 00794614
ANGELA GILLILAND - SBN: 05J41050
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHILD SlJ PPORT ENFORCEMENT
CHILD SUPPORT UNIT D905E
8317 CAMP BOWIE BLVD WEST
FORT WORtH TX 76116·6319
Telephone No. (817)926-7197
ToU Free 1(800)687-8240
Fax No. (817)926-()522
// //' L . ed7.a "7.)7/
/

VERIFICATION
"I ha.ve personal knowledge ofthe facts and allegations stated in the foregoing Motion to IQvc>ke Community
Supervision and to Suspend License and they are true WId correct. ,t
-----. ~ &/~~-
Sandra Toombs CSO IV
"'~".
State ofTexas
County of T.m:r:ant
Before me. a notary public, on this 22 ild day ofSeptember, 2009, personally appeared S. Toombs, known to me to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing document and, being by me first duly sworn, declared that tlte
statements therein contained are true and correct.
5L(?tl~_~ad

NCP Name:
CP N~
OAG Number:
TRACY ALANk07NasKY
JANETMPUTMAN
46iJ524241
CAUSE NUMBER j6IJ..}S3747-91
IN THE iNTEREST OF
§ IN THE MOTH DI8TRlCTCOVRT
§ OF
ACHlLD
§ TARRANTCOUNTY. TEXAS
~Iq
ORDER ENFORCING SUrl"ORT OBLIGATION
ANn CONCERNlNGliCENSESUSPENSION
On tbef)

CHn.DREN
The followit'lg cllild is: the subject ofthis suit:
~ ooB
M 712011988
$'.IN Bb1hpl1l.C:t' .
FORT W~11f, TX
}tRIOR ORDER
The Court FINDS that on 1121200] the Court ordered rnACY ALAN ROZNOSKY to pay current child :support of
$267.00 monthly. beginning 2//12'001 and mDlIlh/ytllereafler.
JUDGMRNT ON ARREARS
Jhe Coun FINDS and CONFIRMS that TRACYALANROZNOSKY is in lil'J'CMS in the amount of
$ t.f~ftB£" '1 as ofJ ... ;?4 ..-08 .Thisincludes all unpaid child support and any
balance owed on previously confumed arreerages or retroactive support judgments as ofthe specified date.The judgment
for t~if;
amount ;s a cumulativejudgmem.
Ajudgtnt11t is granted against TRACYALANROZNOSKY and in filvar ofthe OFFICE OF nIB ATrORNE'Y-
GENERAL in the- Qmount of S t{ ~((;B:t:69"with~ as provided by tbe law of: .
~()fTexa.'I, at the ~teof6%pecannmn;
( ) the State. • that issued the controlling order;
for collection and distdbution according to law.
The Court ORDERS TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY. Obligor. to p[ly said child supportjud~
- $ ~ 60 or be1bietlre__ d1ky &f : ~~ bypaying .
$ ~Od eachnionfhbeginningtlwgdayof~ ~Pajlableonol"
before that date and on or'before the same day ofeach month thereafter until ~ arrearage is paid ill full. or on the
termi:natiOD. ofcwrent support for any child the subject oflhi5 rruit.
... If7JMCYo'1:bdN-R
,_........__""-_~_eachmonth on
, Ietoo wne at1'eara e illpal· 11 The wi Idipg order au1!wri~DshaU
• c: ude such paymen~ but nothing herein shall prohibit tb.e use ofother collection
NOTICE TO OBLIGOR
Past due support is not an ill8tallnrent dOO! and the entire judgment is, now due and·owing. The OFFICE OF TIlE
ATTORNEY GENERAL may take whatever enforcemcm remodies &emed ilece:swy including ~y rellw:l[.8/l; required
byfederal Qr state Jaw,g to collect this judgment, even ifregular periodie paynlCJJU 41n this judgment s.i-e being made,

0,
TRACY ALANROZNOSKYis placed on Mtice that should he fail to pay ~urreat child and meditalsupport. or
toward the arrearage as ordered h«ein. the OFFICE OF TIlE AITORNEY GENERAL may pursue an action to suspend
any or aJlli.cemes he may have.
Pursuant to Texas Family Code § 151.269, the Court l'clains jurisdiction over this matter lUltil aU Clln'ent Impport
\ and all support arrearages, including interegt and any l,lpplic:able fees and (.O~ have been paid,
PAYMENT OFSUPPORT, ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
The Caurt ORDERS TRA.CY ALANRomOSKYto pay all support to the registry of~e court:
T~ Child Support Disb'l.U'Se1Mnt Utlit
P 0 Boll: 659791
San Antonio, TX 78265-9791
for'distribution according to lllw. All payments shalt bei and ORDERS him to pa; the attorney f~ on «before tbe' 3/ "day of
1M ~ .tJ2()J- dire¢tly t¢:
name.,
Texas Child Suwort Disbursement Unit
P 0 BI):)( 24Sg93
San Antonio. TX 78224-5993
The OFFICE OF 1llE ATTO}{NEY GENERAL may enforce tiU& order f'Or attorney fees in th.l; ageooys own
The Coort minERS TRACY.ALANROZNOSKYto payeoQrt."",:/pIWa!1I.a the~ CJelk of
TARl/ANT~. T......on or beCoretbe24-- day or M~ >"tPf- dlt

{\. /'\.
against his child support obliga(io-t}, bu., ~n not di~ any ofhis child suppol. vt)li.gation thAt exceeds the amount so
credited,
The Court fin SUPPORT, with a copy afTexas Family QxIe C1mtJte:r 158 attached, to be
delivered to TRACY ALANROZNOSKY's'cmployer.
The Court ORDERS TRACYALANROZNOSKY to provide anysubsequent emplOYeE with a oo-py ofthe
ORDERfNOUCE TO WITHHOLD INCOME FOR Cgn-O SUPPORT.
STATVfORY WARNINGS
:FAlLURE·TO OBEY A COURTOlIDER FORCHU..D SUPPORT OR FORPOSSESSION OF OR
ACCESS TO A CWW MAY RESULT IN FURTHER UTlGATION TO ENFORCE THEO'RDER,
INCLUDING CONTEMPT OF COURT. A FINDING OF CONTEMPTMAY BE PUN(SHEnBY
CONFINEMENT IN JAIL ~RUP TO SIX MONTHS t A FINE OFUPTO $5CW FOR EAea VIOLATION,
AND A MONEY JUDGMENT FORPAYMENT OJ' ATTORNEY1S FEES AND COURT COSTS. .
FAJLlJ.RE OF A PARTYTO MAKE A CHILD SUPl'OR1' :PAYMENT TO THEPLAC~ AND IN THE
MANNER REQtJlRED BY A COURT ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE PARTY NOT RECElVING CREDIT
FOR M.AKING 11lE PAYMENT.
l"AlLURE OF A PARTY TO PAV CIDLJ) SUl'PORT DOE-' NO'l' .nJS'l'IFY DENYING THAT PARTY
CO(JRT~ORDEREDPOSSESSlON OF OR ACCESS 1'0 A CHILD. REFUSAL BY APARTY TO ALLOW
POSSESSION OFORACCESS TO A CHILD DOES NO'l' JUSTIFY FAO..URETO PAY CQURT-QRDERED
cmLD SUPPORTTOTHAT PARTY. :
EACH PERSON WHO IS A PARTY TO THIS ORDER IS ORDElW)TO NOTIFY EACH O'l'HER
FARTY. THE COURT, AND THE STATE CASE REGISTRY OF ANY CaANGE IN TOE PARTY'S CURRENT
RESIDENCE ADDR:EsS. MAnmG ADDRESS, HOME TELRPHONE NUMBE:R, NAME OF EI\fPLO~
ADDRESS OF EMPLOYM:ENT~ DRlV.ERtS LIaNSENUMBER,'AND WORK TD.EPHONE NUMBER. THE
PARTY ~ ORDERED TO CIVl::NonCEOFAN INTltNDED CHANGE INANY9FTHE R~.QUIREP
INFORMATION TO EACH OTHER PARTY, THECOURT, AND THE STATE CASE REGISTRY ON OR
BEFORETHE ~H DAY UJ'ORE THEINTENDED CHANGE. D"THE ~ARTYDOES NOT KNOW OR
COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN OFTHECHANGE IN SUffiCIENT TIMETO :PROVIDE 6O-DAY NOTICE..
THE PARTY 18 ORDERED TOGIVE NOTICE OF THE CHANCE ONORBEFORE THE FIFrH DAY
AFTERTHE DATE THAT THEPARn"KNOWS OFTHECHANGE. '.
THE DUTY TO FURNlSB: THIS lNllORMATION TO EACH O'l"lllt2 PARTY~ THE COURT, AND
THE 5'l'AT~CASE REGISTRY CONTlNtmS AS LONG AS ANY PERSON. BY VIR"WE OF THrs ORDE~IS
UNDplAN OBLIGATION TO PAY CHILDSUPPORTORENTffI.ED TO POSSESSION OF O:R.ACCESS
TO ACIDLD. .
FAJLURE BY A PARTY 1'0OBEY THEORDER OFTBlS COURT TO PROVIDE tACH01'IIJUl.' .
PARTY. THE COURT AND, THE STATE CASE REGISTRY WITH CHANGE IN THE REQUIRED. .
INFORMATION MAY llE8ULT IN FURTHER. LmGA110NTO ENFORCE THE ORDER, INCLUDJNG
CONTEMPT OF COURt'. A .F1NlJlNG OFCONTEMPT MAY BEPlJNISHlID BY CONFlNEMENT IN JAlL
FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS. A FINE OFUP TO SSOOFOR EACUVIOLATION, AND A MONEY JUDGMENT
:FOR PAYMENT ()F ATTORNEytS FUS AND COURTCOSTS.
ORll£l Em:OB.ClNG SUPPoRT OBr.l.GA1llJN ANDCOl'lCElOONG LJ~St.l5l'~R1N
'
I/' C7
PA.m; OF-!-

NOTICE 1'0THE 8T4.TE CASE REGISTRY
~ is required by the ~ing secnQn. any change ofa party~ residential address, mailing address" home
telephone numhec, name ofemployCI 1
addres.s ofemployment, drivers lioeose numbeil and won:: teiqJbone number are to
be reported bymaH l:D the:
State Case RegiBttY
Contract Services Section
MC046S
P.O. Box 12017
Mmn. TX 78711-2017
in addition to repOrting the change(s) to the (l(her parties and 1he Court.
REVIEW
P'urswnt to 42 USC 666{a)(lO). a parent wbject 'to 8 ohild wpport ordc:t, at least every three years, has the right
tl) request it review of the ordered child support 8niOU1l1s byco~gthe CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT of th~
OFFICE OF THE ATfORNF.Y GENERAl...

- - LICENSE SUSPENSION MOTION
Having heard tilo evideaoe and argumw of..partiell~ the Cowl FINDS that the Movant's ~~ suspend any
licenseQf permit ofTRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY. 15 JAJJ "I/(tIratl/1l-tlt-7/ff~ ~

PUNITIVE CONTEMPT
illCourt FINDS that TRA CY AlANRfJ2NOSKY:failed to pay

. 0. SUSPENnED C,OMM~TMENT~ (). .
The Court suspends'the l)OllIDlitm~t and p)ac~ .~ I •• ·"'·bti/tStl. hcrrWt1tf\er
referre.d to as ReSJ¥miienr, OIl comnmnity Slq}er&lon"for months from the dgte of1hili
ord~T, As ten»s aDd COlJditiOD8 ofcommuoity s~peJYislon, Rc:sJiondc::nl is ORDERED to:
l. . Pay C\U'l'ent child iUPPort as ordered•.includin ~ hea:Jtb-carc reimbur$emrmls, !nsu:r:mJce
.~ -_.- ..,~~ ._~ - - ~pRimimn·pxymc:nts-,-&na-mB£OO~9I't plymeot&..-., - ~~-'"7-':' -,~._-- - --
2. Pay tlie' child .c.nppOI1 arrearage as 'ordot.ed herem. . ,
. 3. Paytbroogh the child su-pporlregjstty. as additiODaJ child support aneamgepayments,
, 100% ofanywindfaU monieS (01 the tQlal amowt of1he ~bild support arrearage,
~hi~hevei is less,) Rt$pOndenl ~eceive,s from any source not late:t than the: third day
(
following reCeipt ~tsrod Windfall mpnie:i. Windfall :irioJiie8 ln~ludes:but
is norJimited.to
lbe.foilowing: gambling and lottery proceeds, legal seft}enu::nts" morietftIY gifts.
um.eritances, and personal in,iurY 8ett)~ml(:Jlis. .
4. Pay CQurt com as orderedherem.
5. Deliver 10 any subsequent employer a copy ofthe wage withholding order- autllori zed
'-"-ner:~
6. Report to the ~onimunity Supervision COl1Jlselor as dir~(cd by the CommUniry
SupcriisiOn 'COWL1elor: lit least once ~llc.h mOlIth if employed full-timr: or a~ ]east ODGe
each week ifnol ~pJoyedfu)).timc. . ,.
7. Report- all changes injOD stat8s. empJoyerts name~ employer's-addrc&s.. home address. ana
8.'
home telephone mbei to abe eommWlity Supenrision C~eJOJ. the Office of the
Attorney Gen~and the custodial consc.rv.atOJ~ wiuUn SfNaJ dll}'S of lU,ly chlU\ge.
Per.mit-the- C~unity SUpervJsiOD GounaeJor to v,isit RC$pmW~l'i ~omet wOlk, OJ
elsewhere, and PemU1 £be Gommumty Supervision Counselor t6 eootact present an()
prospective employers in such a immner as is reasonable and Jle&eSSlD)'·to the
enforcement-vf fuis' OIdcr.
9, PraviQe.ploof10 the CommllIlity S'upervjsioo..COWJseJ,Qr asngu~ted1'egarding
coropJianc~ wi1b aJl terms of this o-rder. ,
10. Attend.jlartid"p3lcm~ and wmpJetetheFOCnS,program and/or any e:mployrrient-rc]Qlci!
progranl-on-tllepmic\lbr dates and in ihe.PmlcuJax 1pmm:r asuirec.te,i by the
CommUnity'Sllpcr-vision Counselor, c.:. . _ArPl
a. PaY.!!tomey!ti~e ~oont ofS(J2o an oJ..beff?ZC·L-J/, . .~..
directly to Ule 'Offi~e oftbe Auomey Gener:d;-'P~~OftIljso~m(IDf:'tJltit, .
~:O. Box 245~, San Antonio. Tex41S 78224~5993.
;
pnrticular manner as directed b _ uperv)SJOJ) COlI!lseJor, to reimburse
Tarrant Co
atiOl1'paid to Respondtnt·s coun-appomted cwmseJ. Each
shall beb easbi4:J's clttck or mcwey order, made payable to the Tarrant COun1y
'U t(J]'~ with the

Court:
INFORMATION PURSUANT 'to TEXAS FAMILY COOle § 105.006 .
36QTH DISTRfCTaJURTTARRANTColJJJ1y. 'tens
Ca'ose Number; 360-253747-97
pRIMARY JOINT MANAGING or MANAGING CONSERVATOR INFORMATION~
Name:
Residence Address:
Mailing.Address (if diffttcut):
Social Secwity l\'Umber:
Driver License Number:
Home Phone:
:Employer:
Employment Address~
Work Phone:
Name:
Residence Address:
Mailing Address (ifdifferent):
SociAl Security Nmnber;
Driver License N\lJUl:ler:
Home Phone:
Employer:
Employment Address:
JANETM PUTMAN
53'1NW NEWTON DR
BURLESON TX. '16fJ28-J725-37
()lJ '171943
(817)295-5939
NRlRGARD STORAGE cmrrERSINC
115j VALLEY STSTE 400
SEA1T1.£ WA 98109-4426--j5
(817)558-9546
.JOINT MANAGING urPOSSESSORY CONSERVATORINFORMATION:
TRACY ALANROZNOSKY
2919 NW22ND Sf
PORT WORTH TX76106-4822·1~
09495758
(817)624-4fil)7
~_L2
fA)N6z, C~AI( .(Xr~5
f/.-().-:~Jf-16/ _.,
Work'Phone: PtPj!IJ e£. i 7X ,.,I,.. ~~ ':! ..
Expected tmnination dale ofobligation to pay cldld suppo'~wrlers ilr possession of, or access to, 11 child. (date of
~ecled enwtcipationofaU mino~);
~h~~
~not
ordered tba, speeiai restl'iool)ll.8 be placed on. the distribution. ofthis infonnaliOn pui'suant 'ttl Texas Fainity Code
§ 105JJ06(c), to wit:

ASSOCIATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED ORDER.
The UOderSjgn.ed;tnlcted a he-ning: inthis ~e and reoomm.encls the prop~ order be aooptnd as the
judgm~ntofthe Conn. No -
C{)U!t was·gi.yen to the
ofthe subst.ance Of~ prOllosed order and ofthe re

CV - FQ1OS9R2:
Attorney General of Texas - Child Support DIvision
FIn~n¢lE" Activity Fl~as of 0912912009
ClIse ID: 4673524241 Cause Number~360-253747-97
_~.__r·-
NCP: ROZNOSf

, •
".
,
'
NCP Name: TRACYALANROZNOSKY
CP Name: JANET M PUTMAN
OAG Number: 4673524241
CAUSE NUMBER 360-253747-97
IN THE INTEREST OF
§ IN THE 360 JUDICIAL
§ OF
A CHILD
§ TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER FOR ARREST WARRANT
On this date the Motion to Revoke Community Supervision filed by the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL was presented to the Court. The Court reviewed the motion and determined that it complied with the
requirements ofTexas Family Code § 157.214 and that it alleges a prima facie case that TRACYALANROZNOSKYhas
violated a term or condition ofhis community supervision.
The Court finds that TRACYALANROZNOSKYshould be arrested and ORDERS the clerk to issue a warrant for
his arrest. Upon TRACYALANROZNOSKYs arrest, he shall be brougbt promptly before this Court to respond to the
motion,
The Court Orders the arresting or detaining authorities to release TRACYALANROZNOSKYupon posting a casb
bond in the amount of$ \QtOOU . a Q . If a cash bond is posted by TRACYALAN ROZNOSKY Dr by anyone for
him, the money shall be deposited in the registry ofthe Court and tbe bond shall be subject to forfeiture or assignment to
pay child support arrears as provided by Texas Family Code Chapter 157, subchapter c.
Signed this day of ---J _

,
•
•
~PPRO -: ~
~ .-4~~//
SA M. SEAGHT::sBN(00794614
lANE CONINE - SBN: 09954500
ROGER SIDFLET - SBN: 00790021
ANGELA GILLILAND - SBN: 05141050
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CmLD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
CillLD SUPPORT UNIT 0905E
8317 CAMP BOWlE BLVD WEST
FORT WORTH, TX 76116-6319
Telephone No. (817)926-7197
Toll Free 1(800)687-8240
Fax No. (817)926-0522
.;< /c:# ~c'A:;?t
?s~:?(

NO. 360-253747-97
EX PARTE
'"
'"
IN THE 360 111 JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF
~...'
TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY,
Petitioner
'"
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:
COMES NOW, TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner
and petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and as grounds therefore, shows unto the Court the
following:
I.
Petitioner is in the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to applicable provisions of the Texas Government Code:
"(c) Concurrently with the supreme court, the
court of appeals of a court of appeals district in
which a person is restrained in his liberty, or a
justice of the court of appeals, may issue a writ of
habeas corpus when it appears that the restraint of
liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or
,
commitment issued by a court or judge because of
the violation of an order, judgment, or decree

----- - -.. -.- --- - -- _.-._-----------------------_._-.-
previously made, rendered, or entered by the court
or judge in a civil case. Pending the hearing of
an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the
court of appeals or a justice of the court of appeals
may admit to bail a person to whom the writ of
habeas corpus may be granted. " TEXAS
GOVERNr\.fENT CODE, §22.221. 'Vrit Power.
II.
The following persons would be directly affected by this proceeding; JANET T.
PUTMAN" the Petitioner in the ORDER REDUCING UNPAID CHILD SUPPORT TO
JUDGMENT (ExhibitA);,
TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY the Petitioner in this application,
presently residing in the custody of the Potter County Sheriffs jail, Amarillo, Texas 79111,
and the HONORABLE JEROME S. HENNIGAN, Judge of the 324 th Judicial District Court,
Tarrant County, Texas. This is an action to enforce an alleged contractual agreement to pay
spousal support.
III.
Petitioner is illegally confined and restrained of his liberty in the Potter County jail,
Amarillo, Texas by Brian Thomas, Sheriff of said County by reason of an order of contempt
from the 360 lh District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. Attached hereto is a copy of the
ORDER FOR ARREST WARRANT (Exhibit E) indicating the fact that Petitioner was ordered
into his custody.
IV.
Petitioner's confinement and restraint is by virtue of a ORDER FOR ARREST

WARRANT (Exhibit E) issued by the presiding judge of the 360 th Judicial Court of Tarrant
County, Texas on March, 19, 2010, whereby Petitioner was adjudged and held for contempt in
case number 360-253747-97 and styled In the Interest of Timothy Alan Putman. The
commitment arose out of the Petitioner's alleged violation of an order of the Court rendered on
or about January 2, 2001, ordering Petitioner to pay $267.00 per month to the said Janet M.
Putman (Exhibit C).
The commitment order found that the Petitioner would be held in
custody for 180 days on each separate act of contempt. Certified copies of these exhibits are
attached hereto, and reference made to them for all purposes.
Petitioner would further show that his confinement and restraint is illegal for the
following reasons:
A. Petitioner has been held in contempt for an order that the Petitioner
contends was invalid at the time it was issued.
v.
The court shall issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus if the contempt order is void because it
was beyond the power of the court to issue. Ex Parte Swate 922 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Tex.
1996). No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or
immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land
and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a
grand jury. Texas Const., Art. I, §1O & 19.
FACTS
On August 29, 1997, Petitioner was ordered to pay $16,541.16 in child support in
arrears to Janet Putman. (Exhibit A). That same day, Petitioner believed his parental rights

were terminated by agreement of the parties involved. (Exhibit B). Years later, Janet Putman
appeared in court with a motion to modify the child support arrangements on January 2, 2001.
(Exhibit C). Petitioner was not present at the hearing, but it was ordered that he begin paying
$267.00 each month to Janet Putman despite the fact that there was evidence of an agreement
to terminate his parental rights. (Exhibit C, p. 3). This arrangement wa~ referenced as the
basis for the Order Enforcing Support Obligation (Exhibit D -
attached as Exhibit A), the
Motion to Revoke Community Supervision (Exhibit D), resulting in the Order for Arrest
Warrant (Exhibit E), which caused Petitioner to be unjustly incarcerated.
ARGUMENTS
The contempt order, to be enforceable, must show that by the wording of the Order
(Exhibit C), the Petitioner is in willful violation of the order. In order to make such a
showing, the movant must show that the support was due, and that Petitioner had a specific
obligation to pay the support.
The Order for Arrest Warrant dated March, 19, 2010 (Exhibit E) is based upon an
invalid order (Exhibit C), patently denying Petitioner his constitutional rights of due process.
This order, issued on January 2, 2001, required payment of current child support beginning on
February 15, 2001, over four years after both parties had agreed to terminate his parental
rights. Petitioner had no obligation to make child support payments accruing after his parental
rights were terminated, other than any unpaid child support referenced in the original Order
Reducing Unpaid Child Support to Judgment (Exhibit A).

B. An order of contempt is not the proper remedy for any child support owed in
arrears in this case.
Under §157.005 of the Texas Family Code, the Court retains jurisdiction to render a
contempt order for failure to comply with the child support order if the motion for
enforcement is filed not later than the sixth month after the date that the child becomes an
adult or on which the child support obligation terminates. Tex.Fam.Code §157.005 (a)(l)-(2).
FACTS
Timothy Alan Putman was born on July 27, 1988. (Exhibit D). On August 29, 1997
there was an agreement to terminate Petitioner's parental rights. (Exhibit B). He was originally
ordered to pay child support in arrears on August 29, 1997 (Exhibit A), and later ordered to
pay additional child support on January 2, 2001 (Exhibit C) after he believed the parental
rights were terminated.
ARGUMENTS
According to §157.005 of the Texas Family Code, Petitioner can not be held in
contempt for failure to comply with a child support order if the motion for enforcement was
filed later than six months after the date the child becomes an adult, or six months after the
child support obligation terminates. In this case, the motion for enforcement came both more
than six months after the child became an adult, and six months after Petitioner's child support
obligation terminated. The child in this case became an adult on July 27, 2006; six months
after that date would be January, 272007. Petitioner and Janet Putman had agreed to
terminate his parental rights on August 29, 1997; six months after that date would be March 1,

1998. The motion for enforcement was not filed until October 29, 2008, which is clearly after
both January, 27, 2007 and March 1, 1998. According to the Family Code, an order for
contempt is not proper in this case and Petitioner is currently being wron~fully
incarcerated.
Also, the ordering of current child support after there was none ordered in the termination
order violates the Texas constitutional protection against retroactive application of laws.
Tex.Const., Article I, §16.
Constitution.
C. Petitioner is being imprisoned for his debts in violation of the Texas
Article 1, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution states "No person shall ever be
imprisoned for debt." Texas Constitution. Article 1 §18.
FACTS
On March 19, 2010, an order for an arrest warrant was issued. (Exhibit E). The
warrant alleges that a prima facie case that Petitioner has violated his probation has been made
in a motion to revoke (Exhibit D) that probation filed by the Attorney General. Petitioner was
placed on probation after he was sentenced to 180 days jail for four counts of failure to pay
child support. (Exhibit D - p. 6 of the ~ttached
Exhibit A).
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner is currently incarcerated as a direct result of allegedly failing to pay child
support. He has been imprisoned simply because he allegedly owes a debt to Janet Putman,
which is a direct violation of Article 1, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution.

EXHIBITS
Petitioner has attached and made a part hereof by reference the following documents:
Exhibit A: Order Reducing Unpaid Child Support to Judgment
Exhibit B: Judge's Report.
Exhibit C: Order on Motion to Modify Support in Suit Affecting the Parent Child
Relationship
Exhibit D: Motion to Revoke Community Supervision and to Suspend License
Exhibit E: Order for Arrest Warrant.
\VHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that this Honorable Court, or one of its Judges, on
examination of this document, issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and fix a time and a place of
appearance thereon, and order that Brian Thomas, Sheriff of Potter County, notice to appear
and show cause, if any she has, why she holds Petitioner in restraint, and further order that the
Sheriff be notified by telephone or telegraph, to release Petitioner pending that he be brought
without delay and that he may be discharged from such illegal confinement and restraint to the
end that Justice prevails.
Respectfully submitted;
~--
BLAKE R. BURNS
115 North Henderson Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102-1940
(817)870-1544
State Bar No. 24066989

IN THE COUNTY OF TARRANT
STATE OF TEXAS
VERIFICATION
BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC, on this day
personally appeared BLAKE R. BURNS, who by me being duly sworn on his oath deposed
and said " I am the attorney for the Petitioner in the above and titled and number case and that
I have the authority to swear on the Petitioner's behalf that the above foregoing petition for
writ of habeas corpus and every statement continued therein is within his knowledge and is
true and correct. "
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on the 1st day of April, 2011 to certify
which witness my hand and seal of office.
My commission expires: :5 -d.S - 13

----- ----
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the above and foregoing Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
has been served on the Office of the Attorney General, by delivering a true copy to him in
person on the 1st day of April, 2011 at his office at 200 E. Weatherford, 2nd Floor
Fort Worth TX 76196-0290.
BLAKE R. BURNS

NO. 360-253747-97
EX PARTE * IN THE 360 111 JUDICIAL
* DISTRICT COURT OF
TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY,
Petitioner * TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above Motion be heard on the__day of
______,20_, at o'clock m.
JUDGE PRESIDING

NO. 360-253747-97
EX PARTE * IN THE 360 111 JUDICIAL
* DISTRICT COURT OF
TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY,
Petitioner * TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING HABEAS
RELIEF
Upon the petition for writ of habeas the Court having
granted the writ, and set the cause for hearing, hereby finds
that the Petitioner's application for relief should be GRANTED.
The Court hereby orders that the warrant of arrest previously
issued is recalled and the Petitioner be released from his
illegal confinement pending further order of this Court. The
Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to immediately notify the
appropriate official(s) at the Potter County Jail of this order.
JUDGE PRESIDING

'01 - ..
,..
f
EXHrsri
iT
5
"u -,
:-
:J
=,. , t.
NCP Name:
CP Name:
OhG NusMer:
-
IN THE INTEREST OF
TRJICY ALAN ROZNOS](Y
JANET M PU7MI1N
4673524241
ORDER REDUCINO UNPAID CHILIl SunoRt ~O
§ IN TIIB 360th JUDICIAL
§ pISTRICT COURT oP
§ 'l'ARRJ\NT COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER REDUCING UNPAID CHILD SUPPORT TO JUDGMENT
on the .,;.,1:9-' day of -A,11.&ftSL-, 19-!lZ-, the Court held a
hearing in this cause.
The A'ITORNEY GBNBRAL appeared by an ASSISTANT A'ITORNBY GBnERAL.
JANET M PUTMAN, MOTHER of the child, Bocial security number
driver license nwnber 08771943, hereinafter referred to as
Obligee,
(.0" appeared in person ~ IIi' attoTT'Q¥ ~~.

-- ---/---------~----,l»..----------.--.r--7.....---~
1
5
"U
j 3. ,
,.
,-,
'-, .
1-'
t(
,.,.
LI
:J
t:
The Court FINDS,
JUDGMENT ON ARREARS
RBNDBRS and CONFIRMS that TRACY JILAN ROZNOSKY is in
. arrears in the amount of $ 14;, 54). I (p as of Ik& II.V ,21 ,
19~. This includes all un~aid child support and any~alance owed on
prcvi~9lY confirmed ar.rearages or retroactive support judgment.s ae of the
specified date, but does not. include applicntion of any child support paid
on that dnte. The judgment for t.his amount is a cumulative jUdgment.
The Court GRANTS JUDGMENT against TRACY ALAN ROZNOS1\Y and in favor of
the ATTORNEY GENERAL in t.he amount of $ I~, 51/,lte , with interest
•
at the rate of 12\ per annum,
law.
for collection and distribution according to
The Court. ORDERS TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY, Obligor, to pay said child
support jUdgment ~1l)'i119 $ A j 3 011 0' befel''' the day
of , 19__, aM by paying $ &00.00 each month
beginning the ~day of OC-rl1BER.. , 19.9.8., payable on or
before that date and on or before the sarna day of each mont.h thereaft.er
until the arrearage is paid in full, or on the termination of current.
support. for any child the subject. of this suit.
If TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY has not paid the judgment in full by the date
his current child support obligation ends, the court ORDBRS him to pay the
remainder of said judgment by paying $ dQiJ, 00 each m::nth on or
Defore the sanle day of each month until the arrearage is paid in full. The
withholding order authorized herein shall include such payments, but
nothing herein ahall prOhibit tne use of other collection methods
authorized by law.
TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY 1s placed on notice that should he fail to pay
current child support, or toward the child support arrearage as ordered
herein, the ATTORNEY GENERAL may pursue an administrative action to suspend
any or all licenses he may have.
Pursuant to Texas Family Code § 157.269, the Court retains
jurisdiction over this matter until all arrearages are paid in full as
required by the court order.
ORDIR RntrCINCl tTNiUD C1UUI StJPPOU' TO Jt1D[R(ll1lT
F5033 i PAGE 022
PMI ~or3
."
J
. "':";
.. '0" . . ".
• "'to .
..:t_
Pt~~ ••
"',.
. \l

-
5
"u
3
:I
-, .
,
I.
,-,
L'
~-,
,-"
L"
L'
:J
f:
PAnlEm OF CHILD SUPPORT, Ft:fS AND COSTS
Tha Court ORDERS TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY to pay all child support to:
TARRANT COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT OFFICE 00 ~ 7 / () 2
Tarrant County Child Support AccO!JJlt #
P. O. Box 951014 ' I
Fort Worth, Texas 16161-0014
who shall forward such payments to:
The Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 13499
Austin. TX 78711-3499
for distribution according to law.
Q..,::::::)
INCOME WITBEOLDING
The Court ORDERS. pursua~t to Texas Family Cod~ Chapter 158. any
employer of TRACY ALA'r ROZNOSKY, current or subsequent, to withhold incoma
from the disposable earnings of TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY for the child's support
as set out in the EMPLOYER'S ORDBR TO WITHHOLD RARNItlGS FOR CHILD SUPPORT
entered herein. Any income withheld from TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY's disposable
earnings for child support and paid according to this order shall be
credited against his child support obligation, but shall not discharge any
of his child support obligation that exceeds the amount 60 credited.
The Court ORDBRS the Clerk of the Court, upon request, to cause a
certified copy of the BMPLOYBR'S ORDBR TO WITHHOLD EARNINGS POR CHILD
SUPPORT, with a copy of Texas Fam.ily Code Chapter 158 attached, to be
delivered to TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY'B employer.
The Court ORDBRS TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY to provide any subsequent
employer with a copy of the EMPLOYBR'S ORDER TO WITHHOLD EARNINGS FOR CIlLD
SUPPORT entered herein.
STATUTORY WARNINGS
PAlLURB TO OBE~ A COURT ORDER POR CHILD SUPPORT OR POll. POSSESSION OF
OR ACCESS TO A CHILD MAY RESULT IN FURTHER LITIGATION TO XllFORCE TJlIC ORDER,
INCLUDINQ COi~rB:l:!PT 0 .. COtTRT. A FINDING OP COHTEHPT MAY BS PUHISmw tlY
CONYiNR!mHT IN JAIL FOR UP TO SIX nONTBS, A FINE OF UP TO $500 FOR EACH
VIOLATION, AND A nONE'{ JUDGMENT FOR PAYHBNT OF ATTORNEY'S PBES AND COURT
COSTS.
P'AIttl'RE OF A PARTY TO HAXB It. CHILD SUPPORT PAnmNT TO THE PUCE AND IU
'I1tE l!ANNBR REQUIRED BY A COURT ORDBR HAY DSULT IU THE PARTl! NOT RECEIVXNG
CRXDI'l' FOR MUINO T8X PAYlmrr.
P'AILtTRB OF A PARTY TO PAY CSlt.D SUPPORT I>OES NOT JUSTIFY DENYING TBAT
PARTY COtTRT-ORDERBD P~SSBSSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD. RBFtl'SAL BY A I'ARTl!
F50331PAGE 02~ ::2. r
ORDER RBIlOCIllG t7m'AID CHIrJ) S11iPORT TO J'lnl0lQNT ~AGI _.-/ __ or 0-
!
I
('
I
I ,
."
i ,
.,
I'
# ~
I'
II
I
, . '.
• ."., •••• , I •
. .

ae pc
......-
'''*
N
-
•
---
5
i'
U
3:I
,
I.
I-'
,_"
I-'
,_"
,-"
u
:J
t:
TO ALLOW POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD DOES NOT JUSTIFY FAILURE TO PAY
COtnl.T-ORDBRED CHILD SUPPOR'l' TO THAT PAR'l'Y.
IUCH PERSON WO IS A PARTY 'to THIS ORDER IS ORDERED TO NOTIFY EACH
OTHER PARTY, THE COURT, Am) THE S'l'ATE CASB REGISTRY OP ANY CRANGE lit THE
PARTY'S Ct1R1tENT RBSIDZNCE ADDRBSS, HAILING ADDRESS, 1I0Jm TXLBPIIONE NUHBBR,
NAMll: OP EMPLOYER, ADDRESS OF EHPLOYHImT, DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER, AND "'OU
TBLEPHONE NUJmER. TRX PAIlTY IS ORDERlro TO GIVE NOTICE OP AN INTEUDJm
CliANGE IN 1oN'l OF TIIB REQUIRED :IHP'ORHATION TO EACH OTlIER PARTY, r.m COtnl.T,
AND THE STATE CASE REGISTRY ON OR BEPORE THE 60TH nAY BEFORE THE INTENDED
cw.NClE. I~ THE PARTY DOES NOT MOW OR COULD NOT HAVE T.NOWN OP TBB CItANClE
IN SUFl'ICIEN'l' TIME TO PROVIDE 60-DAY NOTICE, THE PARTY :IS ORDERBD "1'0 GIVE
NOTICE Of' THE CHANGE ON OR BEFORE THB PIFTH DAY AFTBR THE DATE THAT TIIX
PARTY XNOWS OF TIm CRANOE.
TBE tlUTY' TO PURHISIt TBIS IHP'ORHA'l'ION TO EACH 0TBBll. PMTY, TEE COURT,
AND THE STATE ('ASE REGISTRY CONTINUEs AS LONa A~ lillY' PERSON, BY VIRTt1B OF
THIS ORDER, IS ONDB:R AN ODLIClATION TO PAY CHILD Stn'PORT OR. ENTITLED TO
POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD.
FAILOR!!: BY A P)..RTY TO OBKY THE ORDER OF TDIS COURT TO PROVIDE BACH
OTHER. PARTY, THE COU1tT AND, THE STATE CASE REGISTRY WITH CHANGE IN TaB
REQUIRED INFORHATION HAY RESULT IU FURTHER LITIGATION TO EUFOltCE THE ORDER,
INCLUDING CONTlOU'T OF COURT. A FINDING 01" CONTEHPT HAY BS PUNISHED BY
CONFINEMENT IN JAIL FOR UP TO SIX MON'I'HS, A FINE OF UP TO 1i500 FOR BACH
VIOLATION, AND A HONEY JtlDGHENT FOR PAYHE1rr OF ATTORNEY'S PEES AND COtnl.T
COSTS.
NOTICE '1'0 'mE AT'I'ORNEY GENERAL
All notices required in the above Statutory warnings shall
additionally be given by delivery of the notice in petson or by mailing the
notice tOI
The Office of the Attorney General
CHILD SUPPORT UNIT 0408B
4200 SOUTH FREBWAY
FT WORTH TX 76115
or by facsimile transmission to (817}926-0522.
REVIEW
Pursuant to 42 USC 466(a) (10), a parent subject to a child eupport
order, at least every three years, has the right to request a review of the
ordered child support amounts by contacting the Child Supp~£t Division of
the Office of the Attorney General.
I
~ I I
ORDER ~UC%NG ~AIO CHILD SUPPORT TO JnnaMINT
F50:3 31 PAGE 024 .-/
PM. ~ 0J'-5
. I '., ",
" ., ~

,
-
Signed this
/j
-j
:::t.,
,.
,-,
Lt'
rl.
'_1
,~,:
l'
J
I:
S/.I.J/1P1 • wr
Assistant Attorney eneral
Child Support D~v1siof.t: //
Texas Bar No. OO??'/6//
CHILD SUPPORT UNIT 0408B
42.00 SOUT1: PREBWAY
PT WORTli. TX 76115
Telephone No. (817)926-7197
PAX No. (817) 9~6-0522
1~ ~ J.. AiJ1J ~
T~ ROZNOSKY, Obligor /
SSN:
AddresB:
City:
~tate:,
Zip Code,
_
_
_
_
Address: fp.t lfdQgOo~
City:~1nJ)~e
State :..J~~

AJ.26
GPC·218J
••
JSSW lj'ieJUDGE'S REPORT
CASE NO. 3rotJ --0253?Y 7--9-;-
EXHIBIT
b
mlHE MAilER Of TilE MARRIAGE OF:
IN THE INTEREST OF:
INTHE .30V .o..OISTRICT COURT
TARRANT COUNTY. TEXAS
1. APPEJ\RANCES: _ ~
(~TITIONER/MOVANT IN PERSON (~ RESPONDENT IN PERSON
( ,1..,/PETITI9,NER/MOVA1'Q'_ DID ~OT APPEAR I ) YESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR ..J.........__
(l-f ATTY: t:..o'Sa..gi~ Yl"'D.dC/CU{__ IW ATTY:S4~~ ;5etA...{J.)1'I ~J-
I ~THER: ~()I..J £UT~c;--,-- p~av-a-J
2. FINDmGS: U
Glu. A-O.y

NCP Name:
CP Name:
OAG Number:
IN THE INTEREST OF
A CHILD
TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY
JANET M PUTNAN
46735242'1
CAUSE NUKBBR 360-253147-97
FOm: WO
HSOUI:i
EXHIBIT
§ IN THE 360TH D!ST·.PC::=~ZI!"EE;mr:tJ
§ DISTRICT COURT OF
§ TARRANT COUN'l'Y, TEY.An
u...+;..\'- ORDER ON MOTION TO MODIFY SUPPORT
rN SOIT AFFECTING TaE PARENT CHILD RELATIONSHIP
011 the _ P-iJJi day of _vtUtlJJl=YU-, 20/)/_ the Court held Cl
hearing in this cause. (
The ATTORNEY G~lERAL appeared by an ASSISTANT Al~ORNEY GENERAL.
JANET M PUTMAN. MOTHER of the child, social security number
, driver license number 08771943, hereinafter referred to as
Obligee,
{.:-r··.......appeared in p~rson (and-by-att:o~ney-: ~c".-S

Pig•.~ 0' -dunpaid
balance on previous child support jUdgmcnta as of the specified
date, but docs not include application of any child support paid on that
date. This jUdgment is cwnulative.
The COU1"t GRANTS JUDGHRNT against Obligor TRACY AIJiN ROZNOSKY and in
favor of the Office of the Attorney Genet'al in the amount of $ lYl~ J'·J..//.J'L',
with interest at the rate of 12\ per annum, for collection and distribution
according to law,
. The Court ORDERS OblifKg~ TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY to pay Baid child support
Judgment by paying $ ~ on or before the --. day of
Jrv (It>
- ,1-9- and by paying $ ~).... each
------'-(~fb.u.().1..J±u...hbeginning the I .5(day of ~b)ut~,)'$.&/01,
payable on or betol'e that date and on or before{the Bam~ ~y{s) of each
C(jQ:"H~ thereafter until obligor' B regl.:tlar child support
obligation ends or until he has paid the judgment in full. If Obligor has
not paid the judgment in full by the date Jlis regUlar child support
obligation ends, the Court ORDERS Obligor to pay the remainder of said
judgment by paying $ t..:::j!J'l ..__ each AGnerl] on or before the
Bame day(s) of each J7ta)~tll until he haa paid the jUdgment in
full. 'rhe withholding order authorized herein shall incl'..1de such payments,
but nothing herein shall prohibit the use of other collection methods
authorized by law.
MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT ORDER
The.Court finds that since rendition of the ordet: entitlep. ,
~'®.~~lil1(·ki'iSl~plYl.1 .I-D J elf i)lCt1t- ~Vrdvxg 'if). \kKi(f~l.¥»tr
'1t

C~ CHILD SUPPORT
The court ORDERS TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY to pay JANET /of PUTMAN C',rI:ent
child s~pport C'f $ &(P'l OU each month beginning the __J3 ..:'~ _day of
tee ow. (~ ,c;I..()() I , payable on or before that date an..i on or
befor the a e cay of eacn month thereafter while any child is lesa than
18 years of age or while any child io fUlly enrolled in an accredited
achool in a program leading toward a high school diploma or enrolled in
courses for joint high school and j~~ior college credit pursuant to section
130.008, Education Code, which~ver occurs last, or until every child is
otherwise emancipated.
The Court ORDERS TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY to pay all child support through
the registry prescribed in this decree, and any direct payments by him or
any expenditures incurred during l1is periods of possession ahall be deemed
in addition to and not in lieu of the child support ordered herein.
The Court ORDERS that any payments received for the benefit of the
child froln the Social security Administration, Veteran's Administl:atioll or
other similar benefits, except for income withholding as ordered her.ein,
shall not be credited against TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY's obligation.
The court furthel' ORDERS that the child support provisions of this
order shall be an obligation of the estate of TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY, WId
ahall not terminate on his death.
Other;
r 6535~)PA~E() ail
Oanu ON KO'l'Io'w TO IloDUr· SDPPOU IJf sua

HEALTH
INSURANCE
The Court finds that health insurance is available r.hrcJUgh Obligee's l!ntployTnMt..
mcrnbet"ship in a union. membership in a trade association. membership in another organizat.ion .
.. or that OlJligee can pt"ovidr: heaLth insurance from another. source at a reasonable c~st. The!
Court finds thdt it is in the best interest of the child(ren) to order Obligee t~
the health insurance for the .:hild(ren).
As
provide
additional child support. the Court ORDERS Obligee to obtain health insurance for
ellch child subject of this suit. that covers basic health care services. includlng usual
physician services, office visit.s. hospitalization. and laboratory. x-ray, and ~~e~gency
services. The Court ORDERS Obligee to obtain the health insurance through Obligee's I
employment if possible. . ... "
eff~ct
The Court further ORDERS Obligee to maintain such health insuranCe in full fot"ce and \
on each child subject of this suit as long as child support is payable for that child.
The Court ORDERS Obligee to convert any grour- insurance to individual cov(:rage for each chUd
within 15 days of tennination of Obligee's employment or other disqualification of Ob.lgee
from the group insurance. The Court ORDERS Obligee to exercise any conversion options in
such a manner that the resulting insurance equals or eKt;oeds
conversion.
The Court ORDERS
that im.l1ediately before the
Obligee to furnish Obligor and the Office of the Attorney General.
Child Support En(orcement Division. a true and correct copy of the health insurance policy
or certification and a schedule of benefits within 30 days following the signing of this
ordar.
The Court further ORDERS Obligee to furnish Obligor copies of the insurance cards
nnd any other forms necessary for use of the insurance wi~hln 30 dayli following the signing
of this order. The Court ORDERS Obligee to. within three days of receipt by Oblibe~. provide
Obligor any insurance ch~cks.
other payments, and/or explanations of benefits relating to
any medical ~~penses for th~ child{rcn) that Obligor incurred or paid.
Othorl
_
Page

._---------------
whom cove~gft is provided for the benefit of t -child. F~~her, fo~.the
Bole purpOso of a;PrCle 3.51-13~r·the Texa InBurance~ue, the p~ty who
is n~arrY~he health~surance.pc 'cy is ~e~~~ted the m~ging
co~rvator or possessory-conservator of the cj~~ld.
ONREIK3URSED HEALTH CARE EXPENSES
The Court, pursuant to Texas Family Code § 154.183(c), allocates the
reasonable and necessary health care expenses of the child that are not
reimbursed by health insurance as follows:
A. the Court ORDERS JANET M PUTMAN to pay 50 % and ORDERS TRACY
ALAN ROZNOSKY to pay 50 % of the unreimbursed health care
e~penses if, at the time the expenses are incurred, the party
ordered to provide health insurance for the child is providing
health insurance as ordered; and
B. the Court ORDERS the party ordered to provide health insurrolce
for· the cJlild to pay 100% of the health care expenses ~f, at the
time the expenees are incurred, that party is not providing
health insurance ao ordered. This obligation is without regard
to whether the expenses would have been paid by health insurance,
had it been provided.
The Court ORD~RS the party who incurs a health care expense on behalf
of the cllild to submit to the other party all forms, receipts, bills, and
statements reflecting t~e ullinsured portion of the health care expenses
within 30 days after he or ahe receives them. The Court ORDER& the nonincurring
party to pay his or her percentage of the uninsured portion of
the h~alth care expenses either by paying the health care provider directly
or by reimbursing the incurring party for any advance payment over and
above the incurring party's ~ercel~tage of the uninsured portion of the
health care expensea within 30 days after the non-incurring party receives
the forms, receipts, bills, or statements.
These provisions apply to all unreimbursed health care expenses of any
child subject of this suit that are incurred while child support is payable
fot· that child.

• • ". I' I •
CHILD SUPPORT GUIDEL~h~ FINDINGS
'l'he Court FINDS, pursuant to Texas Family Code § 154.130:
(1) the monthly net resources of the OBL7GOR per month are
$ ~~) ;
(2) the monthly net resources of the OBLI~EE per month are
$ -
(3) the percentagp. applied to the OBLIGOR'S net resourcea for child
support by ~he actual order rendered by the Court is
/?,,5'
!t;
(4) the amount of child support if the parcentage guidelines are
applied to the first $6,000 of t!le OBLIGOR'!3 net ref-ources is
IJ I,'7 oe '
$ _ t~U _ .... ;
(5) if applicable, the specific re,!lsons that the amount of child
support per month ordered by the court varies from the amount
~tated in Subdivision (4) are:
, .
/[_l the Court ordered OBLIGEE, inatead of OBLIGOR, to provide
i
i the health insvrauce fo~ the child(ren)j and
I CJ the Court subtracted benefits of $ _ per
__________ paid to or for the child as a result of the
OBLIGOR'S disability; and
-----.._---_.__.--
_....._--_ ..... ~
_o_:=:.
______. . . ; and
(6) if applicable, the OBLIGOR is obligated to support children in
more than one household, and:
(A) the number of children before the court is /
----
CB) the nwnber of children not before the court residing in the
same household with the OBLIGOR is - j and
(C) the number of children not b~fore the court for whom the
OBLIGOR is obligated by a court order to pay support,
without regard to whether the OBLIGOR is delinquent in child
support payments, and who are not counted under Paragraph
(A) or (B) is ~.
f {j5:; 5l~ PAGE UV 7 I /J
OI.DD OK Mo'l'IOJt 'l'O J(£U)ln SUPP01'l' 1" SAPcrR »}.QJ ~tJ or _1.... (1_

PAYMEh7 OF CBILD SUPPORT, FEBS AIm COSTS
The Court ORDERS TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY to pay all child lIUppOl't to:
:J ~P'I'
- ;rc:

The Court ORDERS
TRACY ALAN P.OZNOSKY to provide any sUbsequent
employer \'1ith a copy of: the ORDER/NOTICE '1'0 WITHHOLD INCOME FOR CHILD
SUPPORT entered herein.
STATUTOR~ WARNINGS
FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER FOR CHILD SUPPORT OR POR POSSBBS!ON OF
OR ACC~SS TO A ~~ILD KA~ RESULT IN FURTHBR LITIGATION TO ENFORCE THE ORDER,
INCLUDING CON1'BHPT OF COURT. A FINDING OF CONTEMPT MAY BE PUNISHED B~
CONFINKKRNT IN JAIL FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS, A FINE OF UP TO $500 FOR EACH
VIOLATION, AND A MONBY JUDGHBHT FOR PAYHENT OIl' ATTORNEY'E FEES AND COURT
COSTS
ḞAluURE OF A PART~ TO HAXE A CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT TO THE PLACS AND IN
THE HANNER REQUIRED BY A COURT ORDER KAY RESULT IN THE PARTY NOT REC~IVING
CREDIT FOR MAXIXG THE PAYHRNT.
FAILURE O~ A PARTY TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT DOBS NOT JUSTIFY DBNYING THAT
PAATY COURTeORDnxD POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD. REFUSAL BY A PARTY
TO ALLOW POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD DOES NOT JUSTIFY FAILURE TO PAY
COURT-ORDERED cnILD SUPPORT TO THAT PARTY.
RACH PBRSOR WHO 1.9 A PARTY TO THIS ORDER IS ORDERED TO NOTIFY BACH
OTHER PARTY, THE COURT, AND TUE STATE CASE REGISTRY OF ANY CRANGE IN THE
PARTY'S CUP~ENT RESIDENCE ADDRESS, MAILING ADDRESS, HOHE TE~EPHOHE NUMBER,
NAME OF EHPLOYaR, AnDDSS OF EHPLOYHBNT, DRIVER'S LICBNSE NtlKBBR, AND WORK
TBLHPHONE NUMBER. THB PARTY IS ORDERED TO GIVE NOTICE Ot'" AN INTBNDED
CHANQ! IN ANY OF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION TO EACH OTHBR PARTY, THE COURT,
AND THE STATE CASB R~GISTRY ON OR BEPORE TaB 60TH DAY BEFORE THB INTENDED
CRANQE. IF THE PARTY DOBB NOT ~OW OR COULD NOT HAVE XNOWN OP THB CHANGE
IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PROVIDE 60-DAY NOTICE, THE PART~ IS ORDERED TO GIVE
NOTICE OF THB CHANGE ON OR BEFons THE FIFTH DAY APTER THE DATE THAT THE
PARTY !WOWS OF '%'BE CHANGB.
THE DUTY TO FURNISH THIS INPORMATION TO EACH OTHER PARTY, THE COURT,
AND THB STATB CASE RBGISTRY CONTINUBS AS LONG AS ANY PBRSON, BY VIRTUB OF
THIS ORD~R, IS UBDBR AN OBLlOATION TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT OR ENTITLED TO
~OSSBSSION OF OU ACCESS TO A ~EILD.
FAILURB BY A PAPTY TO OBrlY THE ORDER OF TH!S COURT TO PROVIDE EACH
OTHER PARTY, THE COURT AND, ~BE STATE CABE RBGISTRY WITH CHANGE IN THE
REQUIRED INFORMATION NAY P~SULT XN PURTBKR LITIGATION TO ENFORCE TBE ORDER,
INCLUDING COHTlna'T OF COURT. A FINDING OF CONTKMPT HAY BE PUNISHBD BY
CONFINKKENT IN ~L FOR UP TO SIX HONTHS, A FlaK OF UP TO $500 POR BACH
VIOLATION, AND A HONEY JUI>GllBN'l' FOR PAYHlm1' OF ATTORNB~' S PBBS AND C011R.T
COSTS.
f G~ :;5KPAGE UJ9
Own ox KOfIOI ':0 IIOJ)In BOPIO.IT U auca f or4

.. _..... --- ..._------
NOTICE TO THE STATE CASB REGISTRY
As is required by the preceding section, any change of a party's
residential addreDs, mailing address, home telephone number, namp, of
employer, address of employment, driver's license number, and work
telephone number are to be reported by mail to the:
State Case Regiatry
Central File Maintenance
P.O. Box 12048
Austin, TX 78711-2048
in addition to reporting the change(s) to the other parties and the court.
REVIEW
Pursuant to 42 USC 666(a) (10), a parent subject to ~ child support
order, at least every three years, has the right to request a review of the
ordered child support amounts by contacting the Child support Division of
the Office of the Attorney General.
f 6~~;~ ~ PAGEU1a
OIDU ox Manoa :0 MCDtn SonOJ.T 1JI
suca

Court:
Cause Nwnber:
PRIHARX'
INFORMATION PURSUANT ~O ~BXAS P1~LY CODE G 105.006
360TH DISTRICT COURT TARRANT County, 'l'exas
360-253747-97
JOINT MANAGINQ or MANAGING CONSBRVATOR INPORHATIONr
Name: JANET fof PUTMAN
Residence Address: 804 HOLLAND DR
CROWLEY TX 76036-2725-04
Mailing Address (if different) :
Home Phone:
Employer:
Employment Address:
Work Phone:
(817)297-7254
ARC MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC
600 G~' ST STE 900
DENVER CO 80203
(817)267-5142
JOXUT MANAGING or POSSESSORY CONSERVATOR INFORMATION.
Name:
TRACY ALJ1N ROZNOSKY
Residence Address: 817 r~IRVIEW ST
FORT WORTH TX 16111
Mailing Address (if different) :
Home Phone:
Employer:
Employment Address:
Work Phone:
Expected termination date of obligation to pay child support and of orders
for possession of, or access to, a child (date of expected emancipation of
all minora) I
The Cour.t:
[~J ~f;f
(I,Y-'has not
ordered that special restrictions be pl~ced on the distribution of this
information pursuant to Texas Family Code § 105.006(C), to witl
f b~~~.(srAGEO 11
OIDD cu. KoUOX TO IICWIFr Sunoa'f 1JI mea 1'.... /0 0' 4!-

'Jd (1
Signed this ex. --;::::.- day of ---r-h--'-~""" ~\:..... _
W&
~Ja.~.
, ~R PRES~----"tI.ol!Cloo::.AlL~b

'.
FORr VJORTH SOUJ11 ~JNO.:OS1~IW
ORDERINOTICE TO WJTHHOLD INCOME FOR CHILD SUPPORT
Stale TeX3l: ~ OriginalOrcleril'lolicn
CO./Cily/Dist, of 360TH DISTRICT COURT, TARRANT County 0 A'l1endcd O,~rmol;ce
Date of Ord£:rfNolico J J #
Court/Case Number 360·253747·97
_RqCQ±r{.1~ Pe-.}!tolr,uv/\,
EmpIOy@'M·.II'~ldei"5 Ft'Ur~1 ftrJ N?bcr ~ 0. ~ ,- I
't'. 0, lE?O f-. 1!.£d_;;..',t;) ,
Em~OYCrf.vrthhOml1rk(ffit!t£l}f la :
","""N""""''''''' A""uo 'iJ;;gjvJ'5,o3(
____________________ I
~......_-------.,.......-------~----- )
taJlIl~·. It\.Y( 001
TU.UllJft tUN PIlT1UJ4
o1/2"J:U!!
- !L 00 I 0 Terminale O;detlNotlCAl
HE: " RCJ7.NOSKY, TRACY AlA~N:..__ _
Employee/Ot,ro 0"5 Ntme It"l, Firal, Middlel
£mpicyeelOblilJ

OIl. tIC.: 0I70-41~
ADDITIONAL 'HFORUAlIOII TO EMPlOYERS AHD OTHER WITHHOLDW
o If cMdtd YIU arr fer:ultK II ftulU I UlY " l\Q fUJI u ylUl IlIIllloyH.
1.
2.
J."
4."
5.
e.
7.
Priority; \l(r\'tlll1'11g InSer ltis O;ilerj!kl~e Iw rriJrily om My ol~~r Ieg~ fioem ItIdH S131~ Izw a~3ilUllh.! Iatll! ir.cerne. (tW2J ltc l!~.l$ in cUm bJtlll'
reui;ll 01 lIU crW bave Iriarily. It tlvt f{1J Federal w Iloo il'l eUul p.'.c~ eMtut the n~tin~ agency 1iJ!lJl ~low.
Ce:dtlaill "-ylVtllC: Yeo cao rM'bir!e wit~!d ~,u from:rcrt \h.rl one c:~oyeclct!igo(s incOfl).! in D IL~;lo patnVlt IlJ racb iQ~ncy R~\i.~ wi~.
YQ:J lT1lIt. re..'mr. U~IIt.ly iSvItiti tile ~ of the si.'lle 1ll"J'!2Q! 1M is 'l\ril:U11b1e to ~h eq:loyee!ob!iQ

NCP Name: TRAcrALANROZNOSKY
CP Nrune: JANET M PUTMAN
OAG Number: 4673524241
LAC: MRVL
CAUSE NUMBER 360-253747-97
....
"". ",., .....
IN THE INTEREST OF
§ IN THE 360 JUDICIAL
§ OF
A CHILD
§ TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION TO REVOKE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
AND TO SUSPEND LICENSE
1. The OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL, pursuant to Texas Family Code Chapter 231, files this pleading
for which discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 2 ofRule] 90, Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure.
JURISDlcrION
2. This Court has continuingjurisdiction ofthe child the subject ofthis suit because ofprior proceedings.
3.
The following child is the subject of this suit:
CIDLDREN
: .-.
NlImr
Set
M
DOB
7120/1988
...-'
FORT WORTH. TX
No property, other than personal effects, is owned by any child the subject ofthis suit. ~~.'
-. , ,
PERSONS E~"'ITLEDTO NOTICE
4. The child resides with JANET AI PUTMAN, the mother ofthe child. The OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY
GENERAL does not request the issuance and service ofprocess on this person at this time.
5. TRACYALANROZNOS}..'}' is the/ather ofthe child. The OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL requests
the issuance and service ofprocess on this person in accordance with the attached service information sheet.
COMl\tUNlTY SUPERVISION
6. On /111312008 the Court signed an order that found TRACYAL4.NROZNOSKYin contempt ofCourt for failure
to pay support. The c~urtordered TRACYALANROZNOSKYcommitted to the countyjail, but suspended the
commitment and placed obligor on community supervision under specified terms and conditions. EXIllBIT A. attached
and incorporated by reference, is a true copy ofthe relevant portions ofsaid order.
VIOLATIONS OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
7. EXHIBIT B, attached and incorporated by reference is a true and correct copy ofthe payment record, shows
TRACYALANROZNOSKYhas not followed the tenns ofcommunity supervision by timely paying current child support
and the child support arrcamge as required.
.. '.
t.-j

8. The Court should revoke the community supervision and order TRACY ALANROZNOSKY committed to the
county jail.
9. The Court, pursuant to Texas Family Code § ]57.2] 5, should order TRACYALAN ROZNOSKYarrested and
conduct a hearing on this motion promptly upon his arrest. .
PRIOR cnILn SUPPORT ORDER
10. On 112/2001 the Court ordered TRACYALAN ROZNOSKYto pay current child support 0[$267.00 monthly,
beginning 2/112001, and monthly thereafter. The amount and frequency ofTRACYALAN ROZNOSKj's child support
obligation has changed. On 11/1312008 TRACYALAN ROZNOSKYwas found to be in arrears in the amount of
$43,685.69.
CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE
11. TRACYALANROZNOSKY failed to pay court ordered child support as follows:
a. Prior arrears as of9/30/2008 $43,685.69
b. Support accrued since 9/30/2008 SO.OO
c. Interest accrued since 9/30/2008 S3,613.35
d. Support paid since 913012008 S3,347.69
e. Total arrearage as of3/2/2010 $43,951.35
12. TRACYALANROZNOSJ...'Yhas repeatedly violated the child support order and the OFFICE OF THE
ATIORNEY GENERAL anticipates that he will similarly continue to violate the order.
JUDGMENT ON ARREARS
13. The Court should confirm and enterjUdgment for all support lIrrearage and accnted interest as ofthe hearing
date. The Court should order payment and income withholding to liquidate the judgment pursuant to Texas Family Code
Chapters 157 and ]58.

LICENSES OR PERl\fiTS
14. TRACYALANROZNOSKY, social security number Jholds the following license or licenses issued
by the respective licensing authorities:
Type of License
License No.
Licensing Authorjty
COL
09495758
TEXAS DRIVERS LICENSE
LICENSE SUSPENSION
15. TRACYALANROZNOSKYhas been ordered to pay child support, owes overdue child support in an amount equal
to or greater than the total support due for three months under the support order. has been given an opportunity to pay the
overdue child support by complying with a court ordered or agreed repayment schedule and has failed to comply with the
repayment schedule. The agreed repayment schedule, ifany, is attached as EXHmIT B. TRACYALANROZNOSKY's
arrears are equal to, or greater than, the total support due for three months under the support order. All statutory
prerequisites having been established, Movant requests the Court to set a hearing on this matter and then enter an order
suspending any license or permit issued to TRACYALANROZNOSKYthat is identified in this Motion.
WITHHOLDING FROM EARNINGS FOR SUPPORT
16. The Court should order all support withheld from disposable earnings pursuant to Texas Family Code § 158.006.
The Court should order all payments ofsupport processed pursuant to Texas Family Code Chapter 231 for distribution
according to law. Ifappropriate, the Court should order TRACYALANROZNOSKYto post a bond or security.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
17. TRACYALANROZNOSKYhas in his possession documents that will show the nature and extent ofhis ability to
pay child support. The OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL. pursuant to Rule 196, Texas Rules ofCivil
Procedure, requests him to produce and pennit the OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL to inspect and copy the
originals, or true copies, ofthe following documents in his possession, custody or control: (a) any license issued by or in
the stnte ofTexas to TRACYALANROZNOSKY, including, but not limited to, his Texas Driver's License, (b) his IRS
federalta..x returns for the past two years, (c) all payroll stubs, vouchers, records ofcommissions and all other written
records or evidence ofincome received by him within the last six months, (d) the most recent Social Security
Administration Fonn SSA·7005, showing his income history, sent to him three months before his last birthday, (e)
statements ofaccounts for all checking or saving accounts in which he has held an interest within the last six months, (0
all evidence (policies, premium schedules, records ofpremiums paid, etc.) ofhealth insurance availabl~ at his place of
employment that may provide coverage for dependent children, (g) copies of loan applications made withir. the. last six
months, (h) current statement ofbenefits and account balances for all retirement, pension, or profit-sharing plans in .
which the respondent has accrued or may accrue benefits, regardless ifsuch benefits have vesteq, including but not :
limited to employcr~ or union-sponsored defined benefit or defined contribution plans and indivf:fual retirement aCC?llOts
(lRAs), and (i) summary plan description ofall retirement, pension, or profit-sharing plans il~ which the respondent has

accrued or may accrue benefits, regardless ifsuch benefit,s have vested, The OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL
requests production ofthe specified documents at:
The Office ofthe Attomey General
CHlLD SUPPORT UNIT 0905E
8317 CAMP BOWIE BLVD WEST
FORT WORTH, TX 76116-6319
on or before 3:00 p.m. on the 50th day following the date ofservice ofthis request.
ATIORNEY FEES AND COSTS
18. The Court should order TRACYALANROZNOSKYto pay reasonable attorney fees and all other costs ofthis
proceeding.
PRAYER
TIle OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL prays that the Court grant all reliefrequested herein. The
OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL prays for general relief.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Abbott
Attorney General ofTexas
Andrew Weber
First Assist nt Attorney General
~--+--~ ~ ~/. Cf.cenc

VERIFICATION
"l have personal knowledge ofthe facts and allegations stated in the foregoing Motion to Revoke Community
Supervision and to Suspend LiceDse and they are true and correct."
~k= tsdl?
arne and Titl~
State ofTexas
County ofTarrant
Before me, a notary public, on this 3'" day ofMarch. 2010, personally appeared S. Toombs, known to me to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing document and, being by me first duly sworn, declared thal the
statemena:onta;nedare true and eorre:t. ,
"V!ll~f(4MJ~J)U
Notary \·,lthr·lIt. Bond

..
~
ioRfW6RTHsoum
NCP Name:
CPNamc:
OAGNumber:
TRACY ALA.NROZNOSKY
JANET M PUTMAN
4673524241
CAUSE NUMBER 36fJ..253747-97
IN THE lNIEREST OF
§ IN THE 3~Om DlSTRJCI'

-------------------------_.-----
.............
CHILDREN
The following child is the subject oftbis suit:
~" DOB SSN Blrthplu:e
M 7/10119U _ FORTWOR,TIf, TX
PRIOR ORDER
The CQurt FINDS that on 11212001 the Court ordercxf TRACY ALANROZNOSKY to pay current child support of
$167.00monthly, beginning 2/112001 and monthly thereafter.
JUDGMENT ON ARREARS
Jhe Court FINDS and CONFIRMS that TRACYALANROZNOSKYi! in arrears in the amount of
$ tf/2f.R8£ ~ q as of 1-?Q -08 .This includes all unpaid child support and any
balance owed on previously confirmed srrearages or retro~etive support judgments as ofthe spec~ed dale.The judgmen1
for t~ls tmount is a cumu)ativejudgment.
A judgment is granted against nucrALANROZNOSKY and in favor ofthe OFFICE OFnm ATIORNEY-
GENERAL in the amount ofS t(~(ItB.z:69 .with interest as provided bytbe law of: .
~ ofTeX1lS, at the ~te of6% p

f'.
TRACYALANROZNOSKY is placed on notice tMt should he fail to pay current child and medica1l1upport, or
toward the arre3rage as ordered herein. the OFFICE OF mEATfORNE¥ GENERAL may pun;ue an action to suspend
any or all licenses he may have.
Pw'suant to Tcxas Family Code § 157.269, the: Court retains jurisdiction overtbis matter until all current support
and all support l1rrearages, including interest and any applicable fees and costs, have been paid.
PAYMENT OF S-UPPORT, ATTORNEY FEES M!> COSTS
The Court ORDERS TRACY ALANROZNOSKY to pay all support to the registry of~c court:
Texas Child Support Disbumment Unit
PO &x: 659791
San Antonio, TX 7&265-9791
for'distribution according to law. All payments shall be identified by:
Obligor name TRACY ALANROZNOSKY,
Obligee JUlIIle JANET MPUTMAN,
OFFICE OF nm ATIORJ'ffiY GENERAL case number 467352-1241,
cause number 360.253747.97, and
the date on which the Withholding occurred.
The Court FINDS that TRACY ALANROZNOSKYshould pay attom.cy fees for the cnfo~t ofchild support
obligation directly to the OFFICE OF nIE ATrORNEY GENERAL. The Court GRAmS JUDGMENT against TRACY
ALAN ROZNOSKY and In favor ofthe OFFICE OF TIIE ATTORNEY GENERAL in the amount of
$ ioot:X> and ORDERS biro to pa; the attomcyfces on orbefore the . ,V ·(fayo!
1M fIA1.
,21){)rdirectly to:
Te~s Child Support Disb~ Unit
POBox 245993
San Antonio. TIC 78224-5993
TARRANT County. TCXM,onorbefore~2J/-daYOf 1/;frl4 ':"1~ d~lyto: .
THOMAS A. WILDER ~ . .
TARRANfCOUNlYLAW erR
200 E. WEAlHERFORD ST
FORT WORTH. TX 76196
INCOME WITHHOLDING
The Court ORDERS, pursuant to Texas Family Code Chapter 158, any'employer ofTRACY ALANROZNOSKY,
currc:nt or subsequent, to withhold income from the disposable~ ofTRACYALANROZNOSKY for the child's
support as set out in the ORDE.RINOTICE TOwrrnHOID INCOMEFORCHILD SUPPORT. Any income withheld
from TRACYALANROZNOSKY's disposable earni~ for child support and paid accon1ing to this order shall be credited
OROER E:'It"ORCmG S\.'n'ORT OBL1GA11O~API'D CON~ L~ SuJn:N5:101'f

f'.,
against his child support obligation, blJC shall not discharge any ofhis child sup?Ot. uotigstion that exceeds the amount so
credited.
The Court finds TRACY ALANROZNOSKY is liable for all court ordered clu1d support, regarrlless ofthe amounts
withheld by any employer or entity, and TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY is ordered to pay any court ordered child suppon not
withheld by Bny employer or entity directly to the Texas Child Support Disburseme:rt Unit as ordered.
In addition. the Coun further ORDERS any employaofTRACYALANROZNOSKY, cum.nt or subsequenl, to
withhold income from the disposable earnings oC TRACYALANROZNOSKY for the payme:lt ofcourt ordered allomey
fees.
The Court ORDERS the Clerk oftbe Court, upon Te!luest, to C3U!e a certified copy ofthe ORDERINOTICE TO
WITHHOLD INCOME FOR CHILD SUPPORT, with a copy ofTexas Family Code ChBpler 158 attached. to be
delivered to TRACY ALANROZNOSKY's'employer.
The Court ORDERS T.RA.CY ALANROZNOSKYw provide any subseque:u employer with a copy ofthe
ORDERlNOnCE TO wrnrnOLD INCOME FOR CHILD SUPPORT.
STATUTORY WARNINGS
FAILURETO OBEYA COURT ORDER FOR CHILD SUPPORT ORFOR POSSESSION OF OR
ACCESS TO A cmLD MAY. RESULT IN FURTHER LITIGATION TO ENFORCE THE ORDER,
INCLUDING CONTEJ.'\fPT OFCOURT. A FINDING OF CONTEMPT MAY BE PUNISHED BY
CONFINEl\:lENT IN JAn. .FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS, A FINE OF UP TO S5(]O FOR EACH VIOLATION,
AND A MOJl.TEY JUDGMENT FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COURT COSTS.
FAILURE OF APARTY TO MAKE A CDILD SUPPORT PAYMENT TO THE PLACE AND IN THE
l\fANl\"ER. REQUIRED BY A COURT ORDERMAY RESULT IN THE PARTYNOTRECEIVING CREDIT
FOR 1\1AKING TIrE PAYMENT.
FAlLURE OF A PARTY TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT DOES.NOTJUSTIFY DENYlN(7THAT PARTY
COURT..()RDERED POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD. REFUSAL BY A PARTY TO ALLOW
POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO A CHILD DOES NOT JUSTIFY FA.ll..URE TO PAY COURT·ORDERED
CHILD SUPPORTTO THAT PARTY. :
EACH PERSON WHO IS A PARTY TO THIS ORDERIS ORDERED TO NOTIFY EACH OTHER .
PARTV..THECOURT,AND THE STATE CASE REGISTRY OF ANY CHANGE IN TIlE PARTY'S CURRENT .
RESIDENCE ADDRESS, MAILING ADDRESS, nOMETELEPHONE NUMBER, NAME OF EMPLOYER,
ADDRESS OF EMPLOYMENT, DRIVER'S LICENSENUl\mER,·M"D WORKTELEPHONE NmmER. THE
PARTY IS ORDERED TO GIVE NOTICE OF AN INTENDED CHANGE IN ANY OFTUE ~UIREP
lNFORMATJONTOEACHOTIIERPARTY,THECOURT,ANDTHESTATECASEREGISTRYONOR
BEFORETIlE 60TH DAY BEFORE THE INTENDED CHANGE. IF THE PARlY DOES NOT KNOW OR
COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN OF THE CRANGE IN SUFFICIENT TIMETO PROVIDE 6(l-DAY NOTJCE,
THE PARTY IS ORDERED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE CIIANGE ON OR BEFORETHEFIFTH DAY
. AFTERTilE DATE THAT THE PARTYKNOWS OF THE CIIANGE. , .
THE DUlYro FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO EACH OTHER PARTY, THE ~OURTtAND
TIlE STATE CASE REGISTRY CONTINUES AS LONG AS ANY PERSON. BY VIRTUE OF THL~ ORDER, IS
UNDER AN OBUGAT!ON TO PAY CIIILD SUPPORT OR ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF ORACCESS '
TO ACHILD. ,
FAILURE BY A PARTYTO OBEY TD.E ORDE~ OFTHIS COURT TO PROVIDE EACH OTHER ,. '
PARTY. THE COURT AND. TIlE STATE CASE REGISTRY WITH CIlANGE IN 'fHE REQUIRED. '
INFORMATIONMAY RESULT IN FURTHERLmGATION TO ENFORCE THE ORD~INCLUDING _
CONTEMPT OF COURT. A FINDING OF CONTEMPT MAY BEPUNISHED BYCONnNE.\fENT IN JAIL ­
FOR UP TO SIX MON11lS, A FINE OF UP TO 5500 FOR EACH VIOLATION, AND A MONEY JUDGMENT
FOR PA'YMENT OF ATl'ORNEY'S FEES ANDCOURTCOSl'S.
0""",,1:>.'0=......TO=••,.". ."'Co""",,,,c,,,~,,,,S=,,,,,,,,
.r--.
..Lf
'=;-.,$ .'
, -,

._.. --------------
.".
NOTICE TO THE STATE CASE REGISTRY
As is required by the preceding section, any change of8 party'! residential addccss, mailing address, home
telephone number, name of err.ploy~, address ofemployment. driver's license number, and wen: telephone number are to
be reportod by mail to the:
StAte Case Registry
Contract Services Section
MC~S
P.O. Box 12017
Austin, TX 78711·2017
in addition to rq>Orting the chenge(s) to the other parties and the Court.
REVIEW
Pursuant to 42 USC 666(8)(10). 8 parmt subject to u child support order. at ]~st every three years, has the right
to request a review of the ordered cllild support 8IJlOunts by contacting the CHIUJ SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ofthe .
OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL.

· - LICENSE SUSPENSION MOTION
Ha\ing henrd the evidence and argument ofyarties, the Court FINDS that the Movant's requesNo suspend any
lic.eme or pennit ofTRACY ALANROZNOSKl·· /S VJJ 'I/ldrtl/I!l1.-at-~ fun.rL

PUNI1lVE CONTEMPT
The CoUrt FINDS that TRACY ALANROZNOSK'l failed to pty court-ordered child support as follows:
ORDERED DUE DATE ORDEREDAMOUNT AMOUNT PAID
Count 1 1- I'" 0 1 167.00 0.00
Coun' 2 -1.r i ~Or 167.00 0.00
Count 3j,., -0 267.00 0.00
Coont4 tf'1 -01 267.00 0.00
The Court FINDS that TRACYALAN ROZNOSKY could have timely paid the above specified child support in
fuU and that he i~ guilty ofa separate act ofcontempt ofcourt for each specified failure to do 50.
The Coutt ORDERS TRACY ALANROZNOSKY committed to the counly jail for 180 days far each separate
act ofcontempt, said commitments to ron concurrently.
COERCIVE CONTEMYI'
The CoUrt FINDS that TRACY ALANROZNOSKY can pay tbe amounts litted below and ORDERS him
committed to the countyjail untO he pays:
1. $ in child support arrearages;
2. S in attorney fees; and
3. S in court costs.
COMMITMENT
The ~urt ORDERS the SheriffofT.ARRANTCounty to arrest TRACYALANROZNOSKY a~ commit h;im to the
countyjail as ordered above, said commitments to run CODCtllTCntly.
~im ro :w::~: ~I Ccmt 81 • ~'Clock__.m., on the day of
___~-J' _ • w.: girr'ai01l13Jlment to the countyJail. ==- .:,..

, , . r-- SUSPENDED COMMITMENT 2 '
. " ".r""\'
.The Court s",p'''~i the commibn";', and PI.oe~1~¥i' I I .• ·oz.i,'lQt¥J,,,ein,ner
referred to ~ Respon'denl, on community suPeriision"fo; months from th[d3te ofthis
order, As tenns and conditions ofcom.rmmity supe:r,vision. Respondcnl is ORDERED to':
J. .
,--.-----.-- - -
Pay cWTent child support as oTdc:red•.incJuding bea1th-care J"cimbllr~ements, ~nsur:ance
PIl~'mi~-end--mWi&aku~ls....-.. -:_.;.__. _
2. Pay tlie' child suppor1 arrearage as 'ordered herein.
"3. Pay through the clrild support registry, as additional child~ arrearage payments.
100% ofanywindfaJJ mOflieS (or the total amount o[the ,child support arrearage,
\~hic.:heve~ is lessJ Respondent n.x:eivc;s from any sou:ce not later than the third day .
foiJowing reCeipl pfsald \viTlMaU m.onici. WUldfa]l mOnJe5 S'neJudes"but i's not-Jimi ted to
the.folJowing: gambling and Jonery proceeds, legal settJ~CDts~ mon'C!.lU)' gifts, .
inheritarices, sndpe:rsonal inimisettlemc:nis. '
4. Pay (oun costs BS ordered herein.
5_ Deliver to My subsequent employer a copy ofthe wage withholding order authorized
,--hertUr. ; ,
6. Report to the Cominunity Supervision Counselor a$ directed by the CommUnity
SlIJlmisian -Counselor: at least once each month jfemployed fuJl-time or B~ least onCe
each ~eek ifnot employed fuJJ-tiT/?c. , ,
7. Report" all changes in job status, employer's name, cmpJo}'CT's"sddrcss, home address, and
borne telephone mnnbci to the Community Supervision C~Se1OT, the Office of Ibe
Attomey General, mid \h'e cuslodia] cOllSavatOJ, within seven days ofmy change.
8,'
Pcnnil·the-C~unitySup~sianGounselor to v,isit ReSJ'0mlent's l;Jome, work, or
elsewhere, and pennil {be Community Supavision Counselor 10 contact present anti
prospective employers ~ sucb a manner as is reasonable aDd necessary·to the
enforcement ()! this' order.
9. Provide-proof to the Community Supemsion-Counselol' 8STeqUe5tedTegarding
compli anee with aJI terms ofthis order.
10, A"end,-participate: ·in, and complete" lhe FOCUS.program andlO1 any employm'l:nl-reloled
program"OJT the particular dates and in the.p.aJticullU manner 8S djrect~ by the
CoTl1lIl\lnity'Supc::rvision Counseloi. ~ . _.J'i.?
H. ~ltom~~"eabrount oU!.OO on o~-be!~e.Z - :ii. ' ,~"_
directly to the Offi~e oftbe Attorney GenaaJ;-T~x~"'€lijT

Court:
INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TEXAS FAMD..Y CODE § 105.006 .
360THDlSIRlClCOURTTARRANl'Ccunty, Texas
Cause Number: 360-253747.97
PRIMARY JOINT MANAGING orMANAGING CO~SERVATOR INFORMATION:
Name:
Residence Address:
Mailing Address (ifdi£I'erc:ot):
Social Seeunty Number:
Driver License Number:
Home Phone:
Employer:
Employment Address:
Work Phone:
Name:
Residence Address:
Mailing Address (ifdiffc:rmt):
Social Security Number.
JANETAIPUTMAN
537NWNEWTON DR
BURLESON TX 76028.3715-37
08771943
(817)295-5939
SHURGIJlD srORAGE CENrERSINC
1J5S VALLEY STSTE 400
SEATTLE WA 98109·4-126-$5
(817)558-9546
JOINT MANAGING orPOSSESSORY CONSERVATOR INFORMATION:
Driver License Number: 094957$8
TRACY ALANR01JlOSKY
2919 NW22ND ST
FORT WOR11/TX76106-4822-19
Home Phone: (817)624-4607 J:- ~ /?
Employer: fA)N6z, ~6N·[ .V(~JRi:S5
EmploymClt Address:
r../J ..:f;-&f; --/c1/ _..
Work"Phone: Pc;#De£ I 7X rJI~~ 0/ ..
Expected termination date ofobligation to pay child 5upporl~rordcts fir possession of. or access to, II child (date of
expected emancipation ofall minors):
Uh
~ as not
co :
ordered that special restrictions be placed on the distribution oflbis infonnation pu~tto TClCaS PainlLy Code
§ 105.006(c). to wit:
ORDOt ENroaclNG SUPf'ORT OIlLlCA.nOM A/CD CONC£Rt'II/'I'G LlCEtlliES\:SPUlSJON

. . .
ASSOClATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED ORDER ,
The UQderSignod~ted a hearing in (hi!) etse and rec¢mmends the propos~ orderbe adopted as the
judgment ofthe Court. No' e ofLhe substance of~ proposed order andoftherequk for de novo to the referring
court was given to the p 'cs participating in Lhc hearing.
Signed this 7-"{ day or oett:t~.....,a-.-_. _
ASSOCIA~E PRESIDING
. ORDER ADOPTING ASSOCIATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED ORDER
10',Court '~~'" adopts the bo,", and fo,eg. g oro:" " lb. o,de< ofthc Court,
Signed this iiay of M!; 20 .
Cl:J"\.!\.V'cN - :
~'Lnl,rn CON • SBN: 09 45
ROGER SHIFLET· SBN: 79 2J
SUSAN SEAWRIGHT - sa: 794614
ANGELA GILLILAND· SBN: 05141050
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
CHILD SUPPORT UNIT 0408E
8317 CAMP BOWlE BLVD WEST
FORT WORTH. TX 76116-6319
Telephone: No. (817}926-7197
Ton Free 1(800)587-8240
FAX No. (817)926-0522
ACE'ilTlFl5/'"]YI'
ATIEST: ?(.)'
. THOMAS A. I'ILDER
Ji lIS ICT C J(
rAE,'" !1 TY, S
BY.V>-!-.~~~:::::::~
Lt~~~~~l~-'
'.

CV - FC1OS11A2
Attorney Genoral of Toxaa - Child Support Dlvla/on
Financial Actlvlly Report el of 03103I2010
c.lO 10: 4613524241 Cauao Number: 360-253747-117
NCP: ROZNOSKY, TRACY ALAN CP: PUTMAN, JANET M
Pagt.: 1
Dale: 0310312010
~t'.~~, r:f:"'';'i'~.;':..' \;:'M" "';":,ii:'!Bi:; j:~; r~:\-t.·_~ 1.1-:.";/(+1:·f
\('Tl'Jti~i" . ";'AdlV1~,N :r~~,l\l:jlori :;.A"I J.litt ~fl!
[fJ.f;.j)ille~ ::f8..i~~.~~ :~~A;'iiOimt:r ·t·;;~·j'i"{"···
!=.....~:~~ ~.,# :~Di~; .i)~i~n:t~
09rJOl2OO8 AmounlOue 43.685.69 43.685.69 43,1155.69
10/31 12008 Amount Due 218.43 218.43 43,1104.12
11/0112008 AmountDua 550.00 43.004.12
1111312008 Collection -253.84 -253.84 43,650.28
1113012006 Amoun1 Due 218.25 218.2 43,868.53
1210112008 Amount Due 650.00 43,868.53
1210112008 Collaetlon -253.85 -253.65 43,614.08
12103i2008 Collaetlon -184.00 -184.00 43,430.68
1211012008 Collection -184.00 -104~ 43.246.68
1212612008 Collection -184.00 -184])Q 43.0ll2.68
12/29J2oo8 CoUeetion -184.00 -184.00 42,678.68
1213112008 Amount Due 214.39 214.39 43,og3.07
01101f.!00$ AmountOuD 550.00 43,og3.07
01/0712009 Collecllon -184.00 -104.00 42,1l09.07
01/2012009 Collection -184.00 -184.00 42,725.07
0112B12oo9 COlleCtion -HI4.oo -184.00 42,541.07
0113112009 AmountDuc 212.71 212.71 42,753.78
0210112009 Amount Due 550.00 42,753.78
0210412009 Collection -184.00 -164.00 42,569.78
0211712009 Colle

CV - FQ105QA2
Attorney Goneral of Texas - Child Support Dlvilion
Financial Activity Report as or03103I2010
Calle 10: 4~73524241 Ceuse Number: 360-253747-97
NCP: ROZNOSKY, TRACY AlAN CP: PlITMAN, JANETM
Page: 2
Date: 03I03f2010
FEDER,AL OFFSET (FO) rCaJip15 a" tUbJed to "'lure aOjl1.l:

• •
NCPl'nme: TRACY ALANROZVOSKY
CP Name: JANET M PUTMAN
OAG ?\umber: 4673524241
CAUSE NUMnF.R 360-2537-17·97
EXHIBIT
TN THE INTEREST OF
§ IN n rE 360 JUDICIAL
§ OF
A CHILD
§ TARRA.,';TCOUNTY. TEXAS
ORDER FOR ARREST W,ARRA,Yf
On this date the :\lotioD to Re\'oke Communit)· Supervision liIed by the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GE1\ERAL was presenled 10 the Court. The Court reviewed the motion and determined that it complied with the
requiremenl~
ofTexas Family Code § 157.214 and that it alleges a prima facie case that TRACI' ALANROZNOSKYhas
violated a term or condition ofhis community supervision.
The Court finds that TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY should be arrested and ORDERS the clerk to issue a warrant for
his arrest. Upon TRACY ALAN ROZ\,OSJ...Ts llITeSI, he shall be brought promptly before this Court to respond to the
motion.
The Court Orders the nrresting or detaining authorities to release TRACYAUVROZNOSKI'upon posting a cash
bond in the amount ofS 'O,DQ\::)
00 . Ifa cash bond is posted by TRACY AL4N ROZVOSKYor by anyone for
him, the money shall be dcposited in the registry ofthe Court and the bond shall be subject to forfeiture or assignment to
pay child support arre3rs as provided by Texas Family Code Chapter 157, subchapter c.
The Court Orders TR4CY ALAN ROZNOSKYto contact the Office ofthe Attorney Geneml at 817-926-7197 on
the day ofhis release from jail and to appear on the firST Wednesdayfollowing his release at Tarrant County Family Law
Center, :200 E. Weatherford,lY-D Court Room #1, Fort Worth,TX 76196, ifhe! is released on bond.
Signedthis~d3yof 2?loiAt-~ .20~.
~'r;?/ld-
Signed this day of ---J _
AC:;:l11FmD C'..o?Y .
f\lTEST: .
THOMAS A. WILDER
OISmlCT C1..ERJ,(
T~.n ' U~
OY:_~~~~~r::

•
•
7 0 :
~.eff:::-:, ~.A'/ ctrc.~ft.,eJ.·~ -aPt ;'~~(
~ . SEA\\ RIGHT· sn:-:(00794614
lANE CO~rNE - SBK: 09954500
ROGER SInFLET - SBN: 00790021
ANGELA GILLILAND - SBN: 05141050
ASSISTANf ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHlLD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
CHILD SUPPORT UNIT 0905E
8317 CAMP BOWIE BLVD WEST
FORT WORTH. TX 76116-6]19
Telephone No. (817)926-7197
Toll Free 1(800)687-8240
Fax No. (817)926-0522

http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?destination=atp&prid=ia744979fOOOOO 13... 6/24/2011
Page 2 of3
Westlaw.
Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2011 WL 1743682 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth)
(Cite as: 2011 WL 1743682 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth))
Page 1
H
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
SEE TX R RAP RULE 47.2 FOR DESIGNATION
AND SIGNING OF OPINIONS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Court ofAppeals ofTexas,
Fort Worth.
In re Tracy Alan ROZNOSKY, Relator.
No. 02-1 1-00I28-CV.
May 4,201 I.
Rehearing Overruled June 9, 2011.
Original Proceeding.
Blake R. Burns, Fort Worth, for Relator.
Greg Abbott, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Daniel T. Hodge,
First Asst. Atty. Gen., Alicia G. Key, Mara Friesen,
Deputy Director of Field Operations, Rande K.
Herrell, Managing Atty. & John B. Worley, Asst.
Atty. Gen., Austin, for Real Party in Interest.
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.l; WALKER and MEl­
ER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONFNl
FNI. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.
PER CURIAM.
*1 Relator Tracy Alan RoZIlosky contends that
he is being illegally restrained and asks this court to
grant his petition for writ of habeas corpus asking
for his release from the custody of the Tarrant
County Sheriff We grant his requested relief.
In 2008, the trial court held relator in contempt
for failure to make timely child support payments
in accordance with a 2001 order; however, the trial
court suspended commitment and placed relator on
community supervision for ten years. In March
2010, the Office of the Attorney General filed a
motion to revoke relator's community supervision.
The trial court issued an order for an arrest warrant
on March 19, 2010 in accordance with Texas Family
Code section 157.214. Relator was taken into
custody in Potter County on March 25, 201 I, and
he filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus with
this court on April 5, 201 I. He was transferred to
Tarrant County on or about April 19, 201 I.
We requested a response from the Attorney
General; in the response, dated April 18, 2011, the
Attorney General conceded that the trial court had
not held a hearing on the motion to revoke.
If an obligor is found in contempt of court for
failure to pay child support and is sentenced to jail,
the court may suspend commitment and place the
obligor on community supervision. Tex. Fam.Code
Ann. § 157.165 (Vernon 2008); In re Alexander,
243 S.W.3d 822, 824 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2007,
orig. proceeding). The Title IV-D agency or a party
affected by the community supervision order may
file a verified motion alleging the obligor has violated
a term or condition of community supervision.
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.214 (Vernon 2008); Alexander,
243 S.W.3d at 824. If the motion to revoke
community supervision alleges a prima facie
case that the obligor has violated a term or condition
of community supervision, the court may order
the obligor's arrest by warrant. Tex. Fam.Code Ann.
§ 157.215(a) (Vernon 2008); Alexander, 243
S. W.3d at 824. Once arrested, the obligor must be
brought promptly before the court. Tex. Fam.Code
Ann. § 157.215(b); Alexander, 243 S.W.3d at 824.
An obligor is entitled to a hearing on a motion to
revoke community supervision. Tex. Fam.Code
Ann. § 157.2l6(a), (b) (Vernon 2008); Alexander,
243 S.W.3d at 824. After the revocation hearing,
the court may continue, modify, or revoke the community
supervision. Tex. Fam.Code Ann. §
l57.216(c); Alexander, 243 S.W.3d at 825.
Section 157.216 of the Texas Family Code sets
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?destination=atp&prid=ia744979fOOOOO13... 6/24/2011
Page 3 of3
Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2011 WL 1743682 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth)
(Cite as: 2011 WL 1743682 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth))
Page 2
out the time frame for holding a revocation hearing
in an enforcement case. Alexander, 243 S.W.3d at
825. That section provides as follows:
(a) The court shall hold a hearing without a jury
not later than the third working day after the date
the respondent is arrested under Section 157.215.
If the court is unavailable for a hearing on that
date, the hearing shall be held not later than the
third working day after the date the court becomes
available.
*2 (b) The hearing under this section may not be
held later than the seventh working day after the
date the respondent is arrested.
(c) After the hearing, the court may continue,
modify, or revoke the community supervision.
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.216.
Here, relator has been restrained since at least
April 5, 2011; more than seven working days have
passed since his arrest. Accordingly, relator has not
been afforded due process and is entitled to relief.
See id.; Alexander, 243 S.W.3d at 825, 827. Because
the trial court did not timely hold a revocation
hearing under Family Code section 157.216,
we order relator discharged from custody and released
from the bond set by this court on April 29,
2011.
Tex.App.-Fort Worth,2011.
In re ROZIlOSky
Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2011 WL 1743682
(Tex.App.-Fort Worth)
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

COUNTY OF TRAVIS
STATE OF TEXAS
§
§
AFFIDAVIT
I, John B. Worley, am over 18, ofsound mind and otherwise capable ofmaking
this affidavit. I have personal knowledge ofthe statements made in this affidavit.
The attached is a true and correct copy ofthe judgment ofthe Second Court of
Appeals in In re Roznosky, No. 02-11-00128-CV.
Jo
L ~,
B. Worley
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the j;) th day ofJuly
2011, to certify which witness my hand and official seal.
,,~P.-I2~
Notary Public in and for the State ofTexas
DEBRA RUSS
Notary Public

· Fax sent b~ : 81788419321 SECOND CT OF APPEALS
85-84-11 16:37 Pg: 2/6
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02..11-o0128-CV
In re Tracy Alan Roznosky § Original Proceeding
§ May 4,2011
§ Per Curiam
JUDGMENT
This court has considered relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus and is
of the opinion that relief should be granted.
Accordingly, relator's petition is
granted.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM

Page 2 of3
Westikw.
V.T.C.A., Government Code § 22.002
Page 1
Effective:[See Text Amendments]
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness
Government Code (Refs & Annas)
Title 2. Judicial Branch (Refs & Annas)
Subtitle A. Courts
"(j Chapter 22. Appellate Courts
"'fjj Subchapter A. Supreme Court
... § 22.002. Writ Power
(a) The supreme court or a justice of the supreme court may issue writs of procedendo and certiorari and all
writs of quo warranto and mandamus agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against a statutory
county court judge, a statutory probate court judge, a district judge, a court of appeals or a justice of a court of
appeals, or any officer of state government except the governor, the court of criminal appeals, or a judge of the
court ofcriminal appeals.
(b) The supreme court or, in vacation, a justice of the supreme court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel a
statutory county court judge, a statutory probate court judge, or a district judge to proceed to trial and judgment
in a case agreeable to the principles and usages of law, returnable to the supreme court on or before the first day
of the term, or during the session of the term, or before any justice of the supreme court as the nature of the case
requires.
(c) Only the supreme court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus or injunction, or any other mandatory
or compulsory writ or process, against any of the officers of the executive departments of the government of this
state to order or compel the performance of a judicial, ministerial, or discretionary act or duty that, by state law,
the officer or officers are authorized to perform.
(d) Repealed by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. ]48, § 2.03.
(e) The supreme court or a justice of the supreme court, either in termtime or vacation, may issue a writ of
habeas corpus when a person is restrained in his liberty by virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by
a court or judge on account of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, or
entered by the court or judge in a civil case. Pending the hearing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus,
the supreme court or a justice of the supreme court may admit to bail a person to whom the writ of habeas corpus
may be so granted.
CREDIT(S)
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?mt=Texas&prft=HTMLE&vr=2.0&destin... 7/12/2011

Page 3 of3
V.T.C.A., Government Code § 22.002
Page 2
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 148, § 2.03, eff.
Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 355, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Current through Chapters effective immediately through Ch. 41 of the 2011 Regular Session of the 82nd Legislature
(c) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?mt=Texas&prft=HTMLE&vr=2.0&destin... 7/12/2011

Page 2 of3
Westiaw.
V.T.C.A., Government Code § 22.221
Page 1
c
Effective:[See Text Amendments]
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness
Government Code (Refs & Annos)
Title 2. Judicial Branch (Refs & Annos)
Subtitle A. Courts
"iil Chapter 22. Appellate Courts
"IiI Subchapter C. Courts ofAppeals (Refs & Annos)
.... § 22.221. Writ Power
(a) Each court of appeals or a justice of a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus and all other writs necessary
to enforce the jurisdiction ofthe court.
(b) Each court of appeals for a court of appeals district may issue all writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles
oflaw regulating those writs, against a:
(1) judge of a district or county court in the court ofappeals district; or
(2) judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52, Code of Criminal
Procedure, in the court ofappeals district.
(c) Repealed by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 148, § 2.03, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
(d) Concurrently with the supreme court, the court of appeals of a court of appeals district in which a person is
restrained in his liberty, or a justice of the court of appeals, may issue a writ of habeas corpus when it appears
that the restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a court or judge because of
the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a
civil case. Pending the hearing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the court of appeals or a justice of
the court of appeals may admit to bail a person to whom the writ ofhabeas corpus may be granted.
CREDIT(S)
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 69, § 1, eff. May 6,
1987; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 148, §§ 1.35,2.03, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1991, nnd Leg., ch. 58, § I, eff.
May 2,1991; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 839, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?destination=atp&prid=ia744b4660000013... 7/12/2011

Page 3 of3
V.T.C.A., Government Code § 22.221
Page 2
Current through Chapters effective immediately through Ch. 41 of the 2011 Regular Session of the 82nd Legislature
(c) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?destination=atp&prid=ia744b4660000013... 7/12/2011

Page 2 of2
Westiaw*
V.T.C.A., Family Code § 157.216
Page 1
c
Effective: September 1,2007
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness
Family Code (Refs & Annos)
Title 5. The Parent-Child Relationship and the Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (Refs & Annos)
Subtitle B. Suits Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship
"iii Chapter 157. Enforcement (Refs & Annos)
"fjj Subchapter E. Community Supervision
.... § 157.216. Hearing on Motion to Revoke Community Supervision
(a) The court shall hold a hearing without a jury not later than the third working day after the date the respondent
is arrested under Section 157.215. Ifthe court is unavailable for a hearing on that date, the hearing shall be
held not later than the third working day after the date the court becomes available.
(b) The hearing under this section may not be held later than the seventh working day after the date the respondent
is arrested.
(c) After the hearing, the court may continue, modify, or revoke the community supervision.
CREDIT(S)
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., ch. 972, §
23, eff. Sept. 1,2007.
Current through Chapters effective immediately through Ch. 41 of the 2011 Regular Session of the 82nd Legislature
(c) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?destination=atp&prid=ia744a4990000013... 7/12/2011

Texas Courts Online - Second ofCourt Appeals Case Management
Page 1 of2
'0J Case Search Results on Case # 02-11-00128-CV
Add to CaseMaii
Case Information:
Case Number:
Date Filed:
Style:
V.:
Original Proceeding:
Transferred From:
Transfer In Date:
Transfer Case No:
Transferred To:
Transfer Out Date:
02-11-00128-CV
4/5/2011
In re Tracy Alan Roznosky
Yes
Trial Court Information:
Trial Court:
360th District Court
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Michael Sinha
Trial Court Case #: 360-253747-97
Trial Court Reporter:
Punishment:
Parties:
Party
6 Roznosky, Tracy Alan
\~ The Office of the Attorney General
Party Type
Relator
Real party in interest
Case Events:
Date Event Type
~ 6/9/2011 Amended motion for rehearing disposed
\~ 6/9/2011 Case stored
o 6/6/2011 Amended motion for rehearing filed
«~ 6/3/2011 Motion for rehearing filed

Texas Courts Online - Second ofCourt Appeals Case Management
Page 2 of2
6 4/25/2011
~ 411812011
ei 41712011
o 4/6/2011
6 4/5/2011
t) 4/5/2011
Reply to response or motion filed
Response filed
Motion for bond or bail filed
Order entered
Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed
Submitted
Relator
Real party in interest
Relator
Action by Court on own motion
Relator
Calendars:
Set Date
o 6/9/2011
Calendar Type
Case Stored
Reason Set
Case stored
Q Hint: Click on the folder icons above for more case information.
http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/printcase.asp?FilingID=24988 6/30/2011

COUNTY OF TRAVIS
STATE OF TEXAS
§
§
AFFIDAVIT
I, John B. Worley, am over 18, ofsound mind and otherwise capable ofmaking
this affidavit. I have personal knowledge ofthe statements made in this affidavit.
The attached is a true and correct copy ofthe order issued by the Second Court of
Appeals on Apri16, 2011 in In re Roznosky, No. 02-11-00128-CV.
~~ B, J~
Jo B. Worley
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the led..,~ay ofJuly
2011, to certifY which witoess my hand and OfficiaIse~A2
c:- -... T:2b" 6!L '.

"Fax sent by : 81788419321
RECEIVED 04/06/2011 15:38
SECOND CT OF APPEALS 84-86-11 14:48 Pg: 2/3
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO.02-11-o012S-CV
IN RE TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY
RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
The court has considered relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus and is
of the tentative opinion that relator Is entitled to relief or that a serious question
concerning the relief requires further consideration.
Accordingly; it is ordered
that:
1. The real party in interest shall file a response with the court by
6:00 p.m. on Monday, April 18, 2011.
2. Any reply shall be filed by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 25.
2011. However, the court may consider and decide the case
before a reply is filed. Tex. R. App. P. 52.5.

~ Fax sent by : 81788419321
RECEIVED 04/06/2011 15:38
SECOND CT OF APPEALS 84-86-11 14:48 Pg: 3/3
The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the
attorneys of record, the trial court judge, and the trial court clerk.
DATED Aprile, 2011.
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and MEIER, JJ.
WALKER, J., would deny relief.
PER CURIAM
2

COUNTY OF TRAVIS
STATE OF TEXAS
§
§
00128-CV.
AFFIDAVIT
I, John B. Worley, am over 18, ofsound mind and otherwise capable ofmaking
this affidavit. I have personal knowledge ofthe statements made in this affidavit.
The attached is a true and correct copy ofthe "Motion for Bail Pending Appeal"
filed in the Second Court ofAppeals on April 7, 2011 in In re Roznosky, No. 02-11-
4d;wo~e~J:>
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the j:J. t:~ay ofJuly
2011, to certify which witness my hand and official sea:;:..;..l.__
< -~b;~
~ry Public m and for the State ofTexas
DEBRA RUSS
Notary Public
STATE OF TEXAS
Commission Exp. 12·06-2011
NgtlUY without Bond

APR-07-2011 1~:53
From:
RECEIVED 64/67/2611 15:52
To: 8179260522
P.2 r 3
NO. OZ·11·00128-CV
EX PARTE
*
•
IN THE SECO~~A§rgUH1 2: 36
;:, ...
COURT OF miAL~;'s'A:{.'CLE:R~
TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY,
Petitioner
III
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL
COMES NOW TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY, herinafter refened to as Movant and
moves this Honorable Court to set a reasonable bail pending appea.l and for cause would show
unto the Court the following:
I.
The Trial Court has set un unreasonable cash bond amount ofS10.OOO.
II.
Movant has made a substantial showing ofhis right to relief under his application for writ
ofhabeas corpus. Movant is, therefore, requesting the Court to set an appeal bond under article
44.35 ofthe code ofcriminal procedure. See Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. Art. ~.35 (Vernon
2006)(stating that in "any habeas corpus proceeding ... where the defendant is remanded to the
custody ofan officer and a n appeal is taken to an appellate court, the defendant shall be allowed
bail by the court or judge so remanding the defendant, except in capital cases where the proof is
evident"); see also id Art. 44.12 (Vernon 2006) ("The amount ofany bail given in any felony or
misdemeanor case to perfect an appeal from any court to the Court ofAppeals shall be fixed by
the court in which the jUdgment or order appealed from was rendered.")

APR-07-2011 14:53 From:
RECEIVED 04/07/2011 15:52
To: 8179260522
III.
Movant is requesting this Court tb set a personal recogniunce bond. In the alternativeI
Movant requests a bond in the amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2 1 000.00) which is a
reasonable bond and is an amount which he can make.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant pl'ays this Honorable Court to
grant this Motion for Bail and for such other and further reliefto which he may be justly entitled,
Respectfully submitted,
C&5''7S=<
BLAKE R. BURNS
115 North Henderson Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102-1940
(817)870·1544
State Bar No. 24{)66989
CEBDFlCAIE OF SERVICE
This is to certify tltat the above and foregoing Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus has
been served to Kelley Greenwood with the Office of the Attorney General, by delivering a true
copy to her by fax on the 7th day of April, 2011 at her office at (817)926-0522,
8317 Camp
Bowie OJ:'I Fort Worth TX 761116.
BLAKE R. BURNS

COUNTY OF TRAVIS
STATE OF TEXAS
§
§
AFFIDAVIT
I, John B. Worley, am over 18, ofsound mind and otherwise capable ofmaking
this affidavit. I have personal knowledge ofthe statements made in this affidavit.
The attached is a true and correct copy ofthe order ofthe Second Court ofAppeals
2011, to certify which witness my hand and official seal\
/' V
~ ~i&~
Notary Public in and for the State ofTexas
.,'OiI'iJl'
#t.':i.~
DEBRA RUSS
t:f~ = Notary Public
\~~~fl STATE OF TEXAS
~~I~~'f¢' Commission Exp. 12.05.2011
Notary Without Bond

Fax sent by : 81788419321 SECOND CT OF APPEALS
B4-29-11 15:46 Pg: 2/6
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-o0128-CV
IN RE TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY
RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
The court has considered relator's "Motion for Bail Pending Appeal" and
orders that relator be Immediately discharged on execution and filing of a bond in
the amount of $1,000.00 and to be approved by the Sheriff of Tarrant County,
Texas, pending a final determination of relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus
and until otherwise ordered by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b).
The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the
attorneys of record, the trial court jUdge, and the trial court clerk.
DATED April 29, 2011.
PANEl: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and MEIER, JJ.
PER CURIAM

COUNTY OF TRAVIS
STATE OF TEXAS
§
§
AFFIDAVIT
I, John B. Worley, am over 18, ofsound mind and otherwise capable ofmaking
this affidavit. I have personal knowledge ofthe statements made in this affidavit.
The attached is a true and correct copy ofthe order ofthe Second Court ofAppeals
denying the Attorney General's Amended Motion for Rehearing in In re Roznosky, No.
02-11-00128-CV.
&~ ~'td~
Jo B. Worley
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the J;}t'-hday ofJuly
2011, to certify which witness my hand and official seal. ._-;~
----- ....
~".. . - . ------..
~b-,,~~
Notary Public in and for the State ofTexas
Notllry without Bond

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO.02-11-00128-CV
IN RE TRACY ALAN ROZNOSKY
RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
We have considered "Attorney General's Amended Motion For Rehearing"
filed by real party in interest.
It is the opinion of the court that the motion for rehearing should be and is
hereby denied and that the opinion and judgment of May 4, 2011 stand
unchanged.
The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of the order to the
attorneys of record, the trial court judge, and the trial court clerk.
DATED June 9,2011.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and MEIER, JJ.

Page 2 of2
We'stlaw.
Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. Art. 11.01
Page 1
c
Effective: [See Text Amendments)
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness
Code ofCriminal Procedure (Refs & Annos)
Title 1. Code ofCriminal Procedure of 1965
"Ill Habeas Corpus
"'Ii Chapter Eleven. Habeas Corpus (Refs & Annos)
.... Art. 11.01. [113) [160-161) What writ is
The writ of habeas corpus is the remedy to be used when any person is restrained in his liberty. It is an order issued
by a court or judge of competent jurisdiction, directed to anyone having a person in his custody, or under
his restraint, commanding him to produce such person, at a time and place named in the writ, and show why he
is held in custody or under restraint.
CREDIT(S)
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.
Current through Chapters effective immediately through Ch. 41 of the 2011 Regular Session of the 82nd Legislature
(c) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.comJprintiprintstream.aspx?destination=atp&prid=ia744b4560000013... 7/12/2011

Page 2 of4
Westlaw.
Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. Art. 11.072
Page 1
c
Effective: June 20, 2003
Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness
Code ofCriminal Procedure (Refs & Annas)
Title 1. Code ofCriminal Procedure of 1965
"'liil Habeas Corpus
"'Ii Chapter Eleven. Habeas Corpus (Refs & Annos)
.... Art. 11.072. Procedure in Community Supervision Case
Sec. 1. This article establishes the procedures for an application for a writ of habeas corpus in a felony or misdemeanor
case in which the applicant seeks relief from an order or a judgment of conviction ordering community
supervision.
Sec. 2. (a) An application for a writ of habeas corpus under this article must be filed with the clerk of the court
in which community supervision was imposed.
(b) At the time the application is filed, the applicant must be, or have been, on community supervision, and the
application must challenge the legal validity of:
(1) the conviction for which or order in which community supervision was imposed; or
(2) the conditions ofcommunity supervision.
Sec. 3. (a) An application may not be filed under this article if the applicant could obtain the requested relief by
means ofan appeal under Article 44.02 and Rule 25.2, Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure.
(b) An applicant seeking to challenge a particular condition of community supervision but not the legality of the
conviction for which or the order in which community supervision was imposed must first attempt to gain relief
by filing a motion to amend the conditions ofcommunity supervision.
(c) An applicant may challenge a condition of community supervision under this article only on constitutional
grounds.
Sec. 4. (a) When an application is filed under this article, a writ ofhabeas corpus issues by operation oflaw.
(b) At the time the application is filed, the clerk of the court shall assign the case a file number ancillary to that
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?destination=atp&prid=ia744a4970000013... 7/12/2011

Page 3 of4
Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. Art. 11.072
Page 2
ofthe judgment ofconviction or order being challenged.
Sec. 5. (a) Immediately on filing an application, the applicant shall serve a copy of the application on the attorney
representing the state, by either certified mail, return receipt requested, or personal service.
(b) The state may file an answer within the period established by Subsection (c), but is not required to file an answer.
(c) The state may not file an answer after the 30th day after the date of service, except that for good cause the
convicting court may grant the state one 30-day extension.
(d) Any answer, motion, or other document filed by the state must be served on the applicant by certified mail,
return receipt requested, or by personal service.
(e) Matters alleged in the application not admitted by the state are considered to have been denied.
Sec. 6. (a) Not later than the 60th day after the day on which the state's answer is filed, the trial court shall enter
a written order granting or denying the reliefsought in the application.
(b) In making its determination, the court may order affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, or a hearing, and
may rely on the court's personal recollection.
(c) If a hearing is ordered, the hearing may not be held before the eighth day after the day on which the applicant
and the state are provided notice ofthe hearing.
(d) The court may appoint an attorney or magistrate to hold a hearing ordered under this section and make [mdings
offact. An attorney appointed under this subsection is entitled to compensation as provided by Article 26.05.
Sec. 7. (a) If the court determines from the face of an application or documents attached to the application that
the applicant is manifestly entitled to no relief, the court shall enter a written order denying the application as
frivolous. In any other case, the court shall enter a written order including [mdings of fact and conclusions of
law. The court may require the prevailing party to submit a proposed order.
(b) At the time an order is entered under this section, the clerk of the court shall immediately, by certified mail,
return receipt requested, send a copy ofthe order to the applicant and to the state.
Sec. 8. If the application is denied in whole or part, the applicant may appeal under Article 44.02 and Rule 31,
Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure. Ifthe application is granted in whole or part, the state may appeal under
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.comiprint/printstream.aspx?destination=atp&prid=ia744a4970000013... 7/12/2011

Page 4 of4
Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. Art. 11.072
Page 3
Article 44.01 and Rule 31, Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure.
Sec. 9. (a) If a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus is filed after final disposition of an initial application
under this article, a court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the subsequent application
unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims and issues have
not been and could not have been presented previously in an original application or in a previously considered
application filed under this article because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date the
applicant filed the previous application.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a), a legal basis of a claim is unavailable on or before a date described by that
subsection if the legal basis was not recognized by and could not have been reasonably formulated from a [mal
decision of the United States Supreme Court, a court of appeals of the United States, or a court of appellate jurisdiction
ofthis state on or before that date.
(c) For purposes of Subsection (a), a factual basis of a claim is unavailable on or before a date described by that
subsection if the factual basis was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before
that date.
CREDIT(S)
Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 587, § 1, eff. June 20,2003.
Current through Chapters effective immediately through Ch. 41 of the 2011 Regular Session of the 82nd Legislature
(c) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?destination=atp&prid=ia744a4970000013... 7/12/2011

Page 2 of2
Westlaw.
TX Rules App.Proc., Rule 52.4
Page 1
Vernon's Texas Rules Annotated Currentness
Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
"iii Section Three. Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court and the Courts ofAppeals
"fj Rule 52. Original Proceedings (Refs & Annos)
-+ 52.4. Response
Any party may file a response to the petition, but it is not mandatory. The court must not grant relief--other than
temporary relief--before a response has been filed or requested by the court. The response must conform to the
requirements of52.3, except that:
(a) the list of parties and counsel is not required unless necessary to supplement or correct the list contained in
the petition;
(b) the response need not include a statement of the case, a statement of the issues presented, or a statement of
the facts unless the responding party is dissatisfied with that portion ofthe petition;
(c) a statement of jurisdiction should be omitted unless the petition fails to assert valid grounds for jurisdiction,
in which case the reasons why the court lacks jurisdiction must be concisely stated;
(d) the argument must be confmed to the issues or points presented in the petition; and
(e) the appendix to the response need not contain any item already contained in an appendix filed by the relator.
CREDIT(S)
Eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Current with amendments received through March 15, 2011
(c) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLW11.04&pbc=BC64FA04&destin... 7/12/2011

Page 2 of3
Westlaw.
TX Rules App.Proc., Rule 52.8
Page 1
Vernon's Texas Rules Annotated Currentness
Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
"Ii Section Three. Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court and the Courts ofAppeals
"III Rule 52. Original Proceedings (Refs & Annos)
.... 52.8. Action on Petition
(a) ReliefDenied. If the court determines from the petition and any response and reply that the relator is not entitled
to the relief sought, the court must deny the petition. If the relator in a habeas corpus proceeding has been
released on bond, the court must remand the relator to custody and issue an order of commitment. If the relator
is not returned to custody, the court may declare the bond to be forfeited and render judgment against the surety.
(b) Interim Action. If the court is of the tentative opinion that relator is entitled to the relief sought or that a serious
question concerning the reliefrequires further consideration:
(1) the court must request a response ifone has not been filed;
(2) the Supreme Court may request full briefing under Rule 55;
(3) in a habeas corpus proceeding, the court may order that relator be discharged on execution and filing of a
bond in an amount set by the court; and
(4) the court may set the case for oral argument.
(c) ReliefGranted If the court determines that relator is entitled to relief, it must make an appropriate order. The
court may grant reliefwithout hearing oral argument.
(d) Opinion. When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting
relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. Rule 47 is applicable to an order or opinion
by a court of appeals except that the court of appeals may not order an unpublished opinion published after the
Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals has acted on any party's petition for extraordinary relief addressing
the same issues.
CREDIT(S)
Eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLWII.04&pbc=4400B250&destinat... 7/12/2011

Page 3 of3
TX Rules App.Proc., Rule 52.8
Page 2
Current with amendments received through March 15,2011
(c) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLWII.04&pbc=4400B250&destinat... 7/12/2011

Page 2 of2
Westiaw.
TX Rules ofCivil Procedure, Rule 301
Page 1
C
Vernon's Texas Rules Annotated Currentness
Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure
Part II. Rules ofPractice in District and County Courts
"iii Section 11. Trial ofCauses
"iii H. Judgments
.... Rule 301. Judgments
The judgment of the court shall conform to the pleadings, the nature of the case proved and the verdict, if any,
and shall be so framed as to give the party all the relief to which he may be entitled either in law or equity.
Provided, that upon motion and reasonable notice the court may render judgment non obstante veredicto if a directed
verdict would have been proper, and provided further that the court may, upon like motion and notice, disregard
any jury fmding on a question that has no support in the evidence. Only one fmal judgment shall be
rendered in any cause except where it is otherwise specially provided by law. Judgment may, in a proper case,
be given for or against one or more of several plaintiffs, and for or against one or more of several defendants or
intervenors.
CREDIT(S)
Oct. 29, 1940, eff. Sept. 1, 1941. Amended by order ofJuly 15, 1987, eff. Jan. 1, 1988.
Current with amendments received through March 15,2011
(c) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=4&prft=HTMLE&sv=Split&vr=2.0... 7/12/2011