Joe Marlin Gilmer v. the State of Texas
12-20-00123-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Appellant Joe Marlin Gilmer is an inmate serving a 30-year sentence for aggravated assault; he was convicted Dec. 20, 2016 and sentenced Jan. 19, 2017.
- On Jan. 19, 2017 the convicting (district) court signed an order to withdraw $16,495.90 from Gilmer’s inmate account under the post‑judgment collection procedure in Tex. Gov’t Code §501.014.
- Gilmer received notice Sept. 25, 2019 that TDCJ had received the withdrawal order; on Oct. 19, 2019 he filed in the district court a motion to rescind the withdrawal order and requested refund of amounts collected as of Sept. 18, 2019.
- On Jan. 29, 2020 the Van Zandt County Court at Law issued a written order denying Gilmer’s motion, even though the motion had been filed in the district clerk’s office.
- Gilmer appealed; the Court of Appeals examined whether the County Court at Law had subject matter jurisdiction to rule on a challenge to a post‑judgment withdrawal order issued by the district court and ultimately vacated the County Court at Law’s order and remanded to the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County Court at Law had subject‑matter jurisdiction to consider and deny Gilmer’s motion to rescind a post‑judgment withdrawal order issued by the district court | Gilmer: the court that issued the withdrawal order (the district court) has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate challenges to that post‑judgment collection order | State/Respondent: County Court at Law can act (concurrent jurisdiction or judge may sit for district court); local rules/administrative practice might permit it (no brief or record evidence) | The County Court at Law lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction to rule on the motion; trial court’s order is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (subject‑matter jurisdiction is essential)
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (jurisdictional principles)
- City of Dallas v. Carbajal, 324 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. 2010) (jurisdictional questions reviewed de novo)
- Juarez v. Tex. Ass’n of Sporting Officials El Paso Chapter, 172 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005) (if trial court lacks jurisdiction appellate remedy is to set aside and dismiss)
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (post‑judgment inmate‑account withdrawals are a civil, garnishment‑like collection procedure)
- King & King v. Porter, 252 S.W. 1022 (Tex. 1923) (garnishment is ancillary to the principal action and must be brought in the court of the principal action)