TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00688-CV
Rodgy Lee Nesby, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 9322, HONORABLE J. ALLAN GARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Rodgy Lee Nesby was convicted of the offense of aggravated sexual assault
of a child and sentenced to 99 years’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed Nesby’s conviction on
appeal. See Nesby v. State, No. 03-03-00559-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3379 (Tex. App.—Austin
May 5, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh’g). Nesby has now filed a pro se notice of appeal from the
district court’s order to withdraw funds from Nesby’s inmate account. The State has filed a motion
to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The withdrawal of funds from an inmate’s account for the recovery of court fees and
other costs assessed against the inmate is governed by section 501.014(e) of the Texas Government
Code. Proceedings to recover costs under section 501.014(e) “are civil in nature and not part of the
underlying criminal case.” Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 (Tex. 2008). In civil cases, unless
specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final orders or judgments. See
CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d
191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An “order to withdraw funds” is not considered a final, appealable order;
it is merely a “notification by a court” instructing prison officials to withdraw funds from an
inmate’s account as required by statute. See Harrell, 286 S.W.3d at 316 n.1 (citing Tex. Gov’t Code
§ 501.014(e)); Goodspeed v. State, 352 S.W.3d 714, 715 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, pet. denied);
Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, pet. ref’d). An inmate may appeal
from a trial court’s final order denying the inmate’s motion to modify or rescind the withdrawal. See
Harrell, 286 S.W.3d at 317; Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 698 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011,
pet. denied). However, in this case, there is no such order. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion
and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Ramirez, 318 S.W.3d at 908.
__________________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: December 20, 2013
2