Williams v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 497
Tex. App.2011Background
- Withdrawal notifications issued Feb. 25, 2010 directing TDJC to withdraw funds from Williams's inmate accounts in three causes and amounts: $671.50 (11,592-B), $13,791.50 (18,246-B), $1,363.43 (18,325-B).
- No attachments to the Bills of Costs or judgments accompanying the withdrawal notices; costs language stated but not attached.
- Appellant filed pro se notices of appeal challenging each withdrawal notification.
- This Court previously held no final, appealable orders existed and abated the appeals for 180 days to allow challenges in the trial court.
- On remand, trial court (1) denied challenge to $671.50 in 11,592-B; (2) deleted $3,500 attorney’s fees in 18,246-B but denied other costs; (3) deleted $400 attorney’s fees in 18,325-B but denied other costs.
- Appellant challenges due process and the assessment of costs, including attorney’s fees, under Harrell v. State and related authorities; the State contends the withdrawal notifications are civil matters and costs are properly imputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withdrawal notices complied with due process | Williams argues due process was violated by cost/amount determinations | State contends notices are civil, not criminal, and adequate under Harrell | Abuse-of-discretion standard; court affirmed trial court decisions deleting some attorney’s fees while leaving other costs intact |
| Whether trial court erred in denying relief on most costs while deleting attorney's fees | Williams contends all disputed costs/fees should be rescinded due to lack of payability | State argues legislatively mandated costs remain payable and fees may be deleted only where indigence shown | Trial court properly deleted court-appointed attorney's fees but affirmed other costs as proper under law |
| Whether the $500 fine was properly included in the Bill of Costs | Williams claimed the $500 fine was not part of plea bargain | State asserts plea papers support a $500 fine; remnant of judgment creates presumption of regularity | Fine properly collectable; presumption of regularity applied; valid portions upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (withdrawal notifications are civil; due process for challenge to amount and basis standard under Mathews factors)
- Snelson v. State, 326 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2010) (due process requires opportunity to contest dollar amount via motion to modify/ rescind)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (court-appointed attorney's fees may be apportioned only with record evidence of financial resources; indigency presumption)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (legislatively mandated costs may be collected via withdrawal notification without pre-summary of sentence)
- Johnson v. State, 72 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (presumption of regularity where judgment recites fines; regularity of sentencing entry)