IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-05-00139-CV
Texas A&M University,
Appellant
v.
Ryan Bading, Javier Garza,
Aaron Horn, Joe Jackson,
Andrew McDow, Michael Rusek,
Ty Sorell, Scott-Macon, LTD.,
Texas Aggie Bonfire Committee,
Trevor Jon Saari, H.B. Zachry
Company, Zachry Construction
Corporation, Harry Eugene
Couch, Jr., et al.,
Appellees
From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 03-001246-CV-361
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
DISMISSING APPEAL AS TO SEVEN APPELLEES
We received a letter from counsel for Appellees, Ryan Bading, Javier Garza, Aaron Horn, Andrew McDow, Michael Rusek, Ty Sorrell, and Joe Jackson, indicating that the issues pertaining to these Appellees on appeal are moot. Ryan Bading, Javier Garza, Aaron Horn, Andrew McDow, Michael Rusek, and Ty Sorrell have settled the claims against them in the underlying suit. Joe Jackson was non-suited by the plaintiffs in the underlying suit and non-suited all of his claims against Texas A&M University in the underlying suit.
The Clerk advised the parties in writing that unless a party to the appeal showed grounds, within 21 days, for continuing the appeal as between Texas A&M University and Bading, Garza, Horn, McDow, Rusek, Sorrell, and Jackson, the appeal between those parties would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Twenty-one days have passed, and we have not received a response from any party.
Accordingly, the appeal between Texas A&M University and Ryan Bading, Javier Garza, Aaron Horn, Andrew McDow, Michael Rusek, Ty Sorrell, and Joe Jackson is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (a), (c).
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Order
Opinion delivered and filed November 30, 2005
Do not publish
[CV06]
e right to assert a complaint about the absence or violation of due process. Further, from that civil proceeding, Rosin could have appealed; or, if he had not participated in the trial, he could have presented a direct attack on appeal by a restricted appeal; or failing that, he could have challenged the judgment by a bill-of-review. He apparently did none of this to protect himself from the enforcement of the judgment.
Now, the trial court has sent an “order” to the TDCJ to pay the judgment out of Rosin’s inmate account. The “order” appears to be pursuant to section 501.014 of the Texas Government Code. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.014(e) (Vernon 2004). This Court has held that such an “order” is void because it is rendered without the due process protections afforded to the owner of the account. In re Keeling, 227 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding). In none of the proceedings in which the Court initially drew this conclusion did this Court have the benefit of briefing by the parties, or amicus curiae briefs, of the relevant issues. In re Martinez, 238 S.W.3d 601, 603 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding) (Chief Justice Gray in concurring note to opinion noting that this was the first proceeding in which the Court had been provided any substantive briefing on the issue). And once we were provided some briefing on the issue in a subsequent proceeding, the Court declined to address the issues as raised and briefed. Id.
The propriety of this Court’s holding in Keeling is currently pending before the Court of Criminal Appeals in a mandamus proceeding filed against this Court. In Re Johnson, AP-75, 898 (Tex. Crim. App. writ filed April 8, 2008). In that proceeding, for the first time, the issues briefed are being considered by an appellate court. In that proceeding, there are briefs from the inmate represented by appointed counsel, the District Judge represented by the District Attorney of McLennan County, and even an amicus curiae brief on the issue from the TDCJ. In reviewing that briefing on this issue, and having heard the oral arguments made to the Court of Criminal Appeals in that proceeding, I am now convinced that this Court, including myself in my dissenting and concurring opinions and notes, missed the most fundamental of all of the issues: the section of the Government Code relied upon by the trial court to render these “orders” is based on the fact that a judgment is already in place. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.014(e) (Vernon 2004). Unless the validity of that judgment is properly attacked, we should not question its validity. More fundamentally, this is nothing more than the collection of a judgment. The TDCJ is not in the position to contest the inmate’s obligation owed under the judgment upon which the “order” is based.
Assuming that the underlying judgment is valid, we should move to the question of the validity of the actions taken to collect the judgment. Because we must assume the validity of the underlying judgment, and because TDCJ is, at most, nothing more than the agent of the inmate, TDCJ has no defense to assert for the non-payment of the inmate’s funds to satisfy the judgment the inmate owes. These are not garnishment proceedings in the traditional sense and as I have previously argued.
The very limited role of TDCJ to act as the inmate’s agent to pay the inmate’s already established lawful debt after the full protections of due process have been utilized is highlighted by the fact that the statute does not even require an “order” by the trial court to the TDCJ for the TDCJ to pay the judgment out of the inmate’s account. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.014(e) (Vernon 2004). Because of the existence and presumed validity of the judgment against the inmate, all the trial court need do under the referenced section is to notify TDCJ of the judgment, whereupon TDCJ is authorized to withdraw the full amount necessary to pay the judgment. Id. It is my understanding that the percentage collection procedure described in the “order” is solely due to the limitation on TDCJ’s information system which is programmed for compliance only with a Chapter 14 collection procedure for having filed frivolous inmate litigation. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.006 (Vernon 2002). But the inclusion of this staggered collection methodology in the notice (“order”) does not make the notice (“order”) void as previously held by this Court.
The inmate had due process leading up to the rendition of the judgment. The trial court need only notify the agent of the inmate, TDCJ as the holder of the inmate’s funds, which the agent is to pay on the judgment from the funds in the inmate’s account. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.014(a), (e) (Vernon 2004). This is not a trust account, nor is it even an account held pursuant to a contract like a regular bank account.
Accordingly, I would deny the petition.
From Whom to Request Responses
But, as I said previously, if I was going to request a response, I would expand the list of persons or entities from whom or which a response is sought.
This proceeding is substantially different than In re Keeling and its progeny. The judgment which underlies this proceeding resulted from a suit by one inmate against another and is not about the collection of just court costs in a criminal proceeding from an inmate. One problem is that the inmate to which the money was transferred may no longer have the money, so if it must be returned, it may have to be paid out of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s budget. That implicates issues not previously addressed in this type proceeding. If a response is to be requested, at the very least, the TDCJ should also be asked to file a response.[2]
Additionally, this entire line of proceedings arises out of a recent effort by the legislature to increase the collection of court costs and fines. Under this legislation, the Office of Courts Administration (OCA) drafted the order being used all across the State. Thus, if I was going to try to write on the issues of the mandamus, I would also ask the OCA to file a brief on the issues.
Finally, as this issue may implicate as many as 14,000 “orders” entered in this State against persons who have little or no financial ability to hire an attorney to represent them, I would determine whether suitable representation could be found, either pro bono or appointed, to represent the interests of persons who may be impacted by what we do here.
With these comments, I respectfully dissent to the request for a response.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Dissent to Request for a Response delivered and filed on July 23, 2008
Publish
[1] When I initially suggested this approach, the Court elected to hold this proceeding, in addition to another one, pending the disposition of In Re Johnson, AP-75,898, by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Thus I was surprised to see the Court now moving it forward toward a disposition.
[2] I note that the issue is also currently before the Texas Supreme Court in Herrell v. State, No. 07-06-00469-CR & 07-06-00470-CR, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 13, 2007, pet. filed (07-0806)). A copy of the TDCJ’s amicus brief filed in In re Johnson was recently filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the TDCJ in Herrell.