Maldonado v. State
360 S.W.3d 10
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Appellant Maldonado was convicted of indecency with a child and received five years’ confinement and a $1,500 fine.
- The trial court’s judgment did not specify the precise court costs in the narrative portion; the costs were unspecified in the bill.
- On May 4, 2010, a Bill of Costs listed $2,241.50 due (including the $1,500 fine, $400 in court-appointed attorney’s fees, and $341.50 in costs).
- A document entitled Order to Withdraw Funds directed TDCJ to withdraw $2,241.50 from Maldonado’s inmate account about three years after judgment.
- On June 24, 2010, Maldonado contested the withdrawal as due process violation; the trial court denied sua sponte by handwritten note.
- The court ultimately held the trial court abused its discretion by denying the contest without required findings and reversed and rendered for an amended withdrawal notification omitting the $400 attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a withdrawal notification under § 501.014(e) implicates due process requiring contest of amount and basis. | Maldonado argues due process requires a mechanism to contest the amount and statutory basis. | State contends the withdrawal process is civil and due process is satisfied by notice and opportunity to contest the amount. | Yes; due process requires a meaningful opportunity to challenge the amount and basis via a motion to modify or rescind. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the contest without determining Maldonado’s ability to pay. | Maldonado had indigence at judgment and no evidence of ability to pay; denial was improper. | State argues the court acted within discretion regarding the withdrawal. | Yes; court abused discretion by denying without a statutory finding of ability to pay under Art. 26.05(g). |
| Whether the attorney’s fees ($400) could be validly withdrawn given indigence and lack of record finding of ability to pay. | The record showed indigence and no ability-to-pay finding; fees should not be payable. | Fees may be collected as court costs if properly authorized, with ability-to-pay consideration. | Yes; the $400 must be deleted from the withdrawal notification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (withdrawal from inmate accounts is a civil matter; due process discusses notice and opportunity to contest amount)
- Snelson v. State, 326 S.W.3d 754 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010) (due process requires the ability to contest the amount and basis by motion to modify)
- Williams v. State, 322 S.W.3d 301 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010) (supporting analysis on withdrawal procedures and due process)
- Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010) (only when withdrawal is properly challenged and denied can there be a final appellate order)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (indigent status presumed; costs including attorney’s fees require ability-to-pay finding)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (legislatively mandated costs need not be in oral pronouncement to be imposed)
- Johnson v. Tenth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Waco, 280 S.W.3d 866 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (withdrawal orders not criminal matters; due process implications)