Snelson v. State
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 9016
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Snelson was convicted March 9, 2005, of possession with intent to deliver in a drug-free zone, enhanced, and sentenced to 60 years.
- Judgment listed costs owed but blanked the amount in the summary portion; final mandate issued October 5, 2007.
- Over two years later, using the same cause number, the trial court entered an Order to Withdraw Inmate Funds under Tex. Gov't Code § 501.014(c).
- The withdrawal directed the TDCJ to deduct $2,228.50 from Snelson's inmate account for attorney fees and other costs, with a bill of costs attached.
- Harrell v. State (Tex. 2009) held that withdrawal notifications under § 501.014(e) are civil matters akin to garnishment, and that due process can be satisfied by notice and a chance to contest the amount and statutory basis after withdrawal.
- The trial court had not issued a final, appealable order addressing a motion to rescind or modify the withdrawal notification, so Snelson’s notice of appeal was premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the withdrawal notification is a final, appealable order | Snelson argues due process issues and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | State contends no final, appealable order has been entered. | No final, appealable order exists; appeal premature. |
| Whether due process was satisfied under Harrell and Mathews Eldridge | Withdrawal violates due process without final adjudication. | Notice and opportunity to contest amount suffice per Harrell. | Court did not resolve due to absence of final order; abatement required. |
| Whether the case should be abated pending a final order addressing the motion to rescind/modify | (Not stated as a separate argument in opinion) | (Not stated as a separate argument in opinion) | Abated for 90 days to allow motion and obtain a final, appealable order; if none, dismissal or further abatement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (withdrawal-notification civil; due process considerations for amount and basis; pre-withdrawal hearing not required)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-part due-process balancing test)
- Iacono v. Lyons, 6 S.W.3d 715 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (abates for action on motion to obtain final, appealable order)
- Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010) (dismissal or further abatement if no final appealable order)
- Johnson v. Tenth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Waco, 280 S.W.3d 866 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (withdrawal orders are not criminal matters)
- Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp. v. State, 273 S.W.3d 157 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (nisi-like withdrawal notices and timing of finality)