Snelson v. State
341 S.W.3d 582
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Snelson was convicted March 9, 2005, of drug offenses with intent to deliver in a drug-free zone, twice enhanced, receiving a 60-year sentence.
- On February 25, 2010, the trial court issued a withdrawal notification under Tex. Gov't Code § 501.014(e) directing $2,228.50 to be withdrawn from Snelson's inmate account for fines and costs.
- A March 9, 2010 bill of costs listed $2,228.50 owed, including $1,950 for attorney's fees, though the judgment did not specify costs or fees clearly.
- Snelson, proceeding pro se, sought rescission of the withdrawal notification via motion to modify, correct, or rescind, with subsequent appeals and abatement proceedings.
- The trial court issued an Amended Withdrawal Funds Order on March 21, 2011, deleting the $1,950 attorney’s fees and authorizing $242.04 in legislatively mandated fees and costs; the appellate court ultimately concluded a final, appealable order existed and affirmed the amended order.
- The dispositive issues concern due process, trial court jurisdiction to resolve the challenge, and the constitutionality of § 501.014(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the withdrawal notification violated due process | Snelson contends due process was violated | State argues due process satisfied via notice and opportunity to contest | Overruled; no due process violation found |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to resolve the challenge | Snelson asserts lack of jurisdiction | State asserts proper jurisdiction to resolve motion to rescind | Overruled; trial court had jurisdiction |
| Whether § 501.014(e) is unconstitutional | Snelson argues statute unconstitutional | State defends statute as constitutional | Overruled; statute not unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (withdrawal notification constitutional with due process if notice and opportunity to contest are provided)
- Williams v. State, 322 S.W.3d 301 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010) (supports that due process requires an opportunity to contest the withdrawal amount and basis)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (limits on reimbursing court-appointed attorney's fees when ability to pay is not shown)
- Armstrong v. State, 320 S.W.3d 479 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010) (legislatively mandated fees may be withdrawn irrespective of ability to pay; not required to be in judgment)
- Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010) (discusses related analysis of withdrawal notices and appellate timing)