Owen v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 8152
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Owen appeals a trial court withdrawal notification directing the TDCJ to withhold $196.50 from his inmate account twelve years after conviction.
- The original 1998 judgment included costs but the summary portion left the dollar amount blank.
- The withdrawal was under Government Code § 501.014(e); the court later issued a withdrawal notification amount and basis.
- Owen argued due process issues, including ability-to-pay under Art. 26.05(g) and lack of factual basis for the withdrawal.
- The appeal followed an abatement for an appealable order; after a later ruling, the matter became a final, appealable order.
- Texas jurisprudence on due process and prisoner-withdrawal notifications centers on Harrell v. State and related Amarillo court decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with ability-to-pay requirements. | Owen argues 26.05(g) requires ability-to-pay evidence. | State contends 26.05(g) applies only to court-appointed fees, not mandated costs. | Issue I overruled; ability-to-pay not required for legislatively mandated costs. |
| Whether the withdrawal notification had a sufficient factual basis for the assessed fees. | Owen challenges several listed fees as unauthorized or unsupported. | State asserts certain fees are required by statute or properly assessed; others are not clearly authorized. | Particular contested fees mostly unsupported; issue sustained and fees deleted; $70 arrest fee upheld. |
| Whether the withdrawal notification improperly varied from the underlying judgment. | Costs should be included in the judgment; blank costs field creates mismatch. | Legislatively mandated fees may be withdrawn without being in the judgment. | Issue III overruled; mandated costs may be withdrawn regardless of judgment phrasing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (withdrawal notification constitutional with notice and opportunity to contest amount)
- Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011) (distinguishes ability to pay and payment of costs with withdrawal process)
- Snelson v. State, 326 S.W.3d 754 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010) (due process and withdrawal-notification procedures in Amarillo)
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (distinguishes bill of costs from actual costs and authority to impose)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (costs and their statutory basis in criminal appellate context)
- Perez v. State, 280 S.W.3d 886 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009) (ability-to-pay analysis limited to court-appointed fees, not mandated costs)