Danny Lee Shead v. State
07-15-00165-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 11, 2015Background
- Danny Lee Shead was convicted in the 1990s on two related sexual-offense matters (cause nos. 8460-B and 8461-B) and later (2008) for failure to register as a sex offender (cause no. 19154-B). He did not appeal those convictions.
- Decades after the original judgments, the trial court signed Orders to Withdraw Inmate Funds (2010) and later nunc pro tunc Orders to Withdraw Funds (2014) to collect fines, court costs, and attorney’s fees from Shead’s inmate account in each cause.
- Shead filed objections and motions to rescind the nunc pro tunc withdrawal orders; the trial court denied relief without a hearing, and Shead appealed by restricted appeals. The State moved to dismiss; the motion was denied.
- Shead argued (1) the withdrawal orders deprived him of property without due process (no pre-withdrawal notice/garnishment protections) and (2) attorney’s fees were improperly assessed in violation of article 26.05(g). He also challenged payment allocation.
- The court applied Harrell’s Mathews balancing approach for due process in inmate-withdrawal orders and analyzed the propriety of assessed fines, costs, and attorney’s fees separately for each cause number.
Issues
| Issue | Shead's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nunc pro tunc withdrawal orders violated procedural due process | Withdrawal of inmate funds without pre-withdrawal notice or garnishment deprived Shead of property | No error apparent on face of record; Harrell allows post-withdrawal notice and opportunity to contest | Denied—Harrell satisfied due process; orders did not abuse discretion |
| Whether court-appointed attorney’s fees were properly assessed when no ability-to-pay finding was made | Fees assessed without a finding of ability to pay (for non-supervision convictions) violated art. 26.05(g) and Mayer | For fees imposed as a condition of community supervision, failure to appeal at the time forfeits complaint (Riles) | Mixed—fees tied to community supervision upheld when forfeited by direct-appeal failure; fees for 19154-B (not from supervision) were improperly assessed without ability-to-pay finding |
| Whether fines included on later bills of costs were collectible via withdrawal orders when omitted from final judgment | Fines not in the adjudicating judgment were invalidly asserted years later | Legislatively mandated fines/costs are collectible and clerks may include costs in bills of costs; but fines not in judgment cannot be newly imposed | Court deleted $1,000 fines improperly added in two 1990s cases and adjusted balances accordingly |
| Whether payments allocation and credits were properly applied across causes | Challenges to allocation and credits | Only issue before court is propriety of withdrawal orders; allocation left to district clerk | Court remanded to clerk to prepare amended bills; made no definitive allocation decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (Mathews balancing; post-withdrawal notice and opportunity to contest satisfy due process for inmate-account withdrawals)
- Abdullah v. State, 211 S.W.3d 938 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2007) (challenge to withdrawals where garnishment-like protections were not provided)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (court must find ability to pay before ordering reimbursement of court-appointed attorney fees)
- Riles v. State, 452 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (complaint about attorney’s fees as a condition of community supervision is forfeited if not raised on direct appeal)
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (distinguishes punitive fines from compensatory costs/fees)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (legislatively mandated court costs are compensatory and collectible independent of oral pronouncement)
- Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 2011) (interpreting Harrell: due process requires notice and post-withdrawal opportunity to contest amount and statutory basis)