351 S.W.3d 71
Tex. App.2011Background
- Hart, an inmate, was convicted of manufacture of a controlled substance and sentenced to 30 years, fine $10,000, and costs $238; final judgment May 24, 2005.
- While on parole, Hart committed a second drug offense; he was convicted and sentenced to 45 years, costs $233, no fine.
- On August 23, 2010, a withdrawal notification under Tex. Gov’t Code § 501.014(e) directed TDCJ to levy funds from Hart’s inmate account to satisfy the 2005 fine and costs.
- Hart argued the withdrawal violated due process because there was no prior warning or notice, and that he was on parole for the underlying offense when the withdrawal was entered.
- Hart sought mandamus to reverse the withdrawal as void, and to return funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the withdrawal notification is void for due process | Hart asserts no prior warning or notice. | Hart received a copy of the withdrawal notification and had a chance to be heard. | Not void; due process satisfied. |
| Whether Hart had an adequate remedy at law to challenge the withdrawal | Hart could appeal the order overruling objections. | Mandamus unavailable because direct appeal was available. | Hart had an adequate remedy at law via appeal; mandamus denied. |
| Whether the timing of parole affected validity of the withdrawal | Parole status at withdrawal undermines validity. | Statute allows collection regardless of parole status. | Parole timing does not render withdrawal void. |
| Whether the withdrawal procedure complied with Harrell and related due process standards | Harrell requires pre-withdrawal notice. | Harrell allows notice and opportunity to be heard; pre-withdrawal notice not required. | Procedure complied with due process under Harrell. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (due process in inmate fund-withdrawal context; notice and opportunity to be heard sufficient)
- Johnson v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Waco, 280 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (withdrawal of funds not a criminal matter; civil-remedy appealable)
- Pannell v. Tex., App.-Fort Worth, 283 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2009) (mandamus unavailable where adequate appellate remedy not timely pursued)
- In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2000) (mandamus availability when no adequate remedy at law)
- Ex parte Kuester, 21 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (parole status and effect on conviction-like proceedings)
- In re Taylor, 130 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001) (due process considerations in void-order contexts)
- In re Acceptance Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2000) (mandamus when order void)