Donny Lee Bretz v. State
11-13-00313-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 22, 2015Background
- Appellant Donny Lee Bretz was convicted of murder in 1985 and sentenced to 99 years imprisonment plus a $10,000 fine.
- In 2012/2013 a postjudgment "Order to Withdraw Funds" (withdrawal notification) was issued under Tex. Gov't Code §501.014(e) directing TDCJ to withhold $10,000 from Bretz’s inmate trust account to satisfy the fine.
- Bretz, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a motion to rescind the withdrawal notification, arguing the court lacked a collection mechanism and that he had been previously declared indigent.
- The trial court denied the motion on August 21, 2013; Bretz appealed that denial.
- The appellate court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and considered whether §501.014(e) provides a valid postjudgment collection mechanism and whether indigence bars withdrawal of fines from inmate accounts.
- Court affirmed the denial: §501.014(e) authorizes withdrawal of fines from inmate accounts regardless of ability to pay, and the $10,000 withdrawal matched the fine in the original judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had means to collect monetary judgment via withdrawal notification | Bretz: court lacked means to collect financial portions of judgment; rescind withdrawal | State: §501.014(e) is a valid postjudgment collection mechanism to seize inmate funds | Held: §501.014(e) provides a valid collection method; withdrawal proper |
| Whether withdrawal notification was improper given Bretz's indigence | Bretz: prior indigence determination precludes seizure from inmate account | State: fines and statutory fees may be collected from inmate accounts regardless of ability to pay | Held: Indigence does not bar withdrawal of fines/legislatively mandated fees from inmate account |
| Whether the withdrawn amount matched judgment | Bretz: contested amount/status of withdrawal | State: withdrawal equals the $10,000 fine reflected in judgment | Held: Judgment’s recitation of $10,000 fine creates presumption of regularity; amount properly collectible |
| Whether denial of motion to rescind was appealable and review standard | Bretz: sought review of denial | State: denial is appealable; reviewed for abuse of discretion | Held: denial is appealable; abuse-of-discretion standard applies and was not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (withdrawal notifications under §501.014(e) are civil garnishment-like proceedings; due process requires notice and opportunity to contest)
- Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (trial court’s denial of motion to rescind reviewed for abuse of discretion; judgment recitation creates presumption of regularity)
- Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010) (disposition of a motion contesting withdrawal notification is appealable)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (defendant may not be ordered to reimburse appointed counsel without ability-to-pay evidence)
- Snelson v. State, 341 S.W.3d 582 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (fines and statutory fees may be withdrawn from inmate accounts regardless of ability to pay)