### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 11
- 00119
- CV
TOMMY WAYNE FRANKS , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 1995
- 715
- C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In Cause No . 1995

- 715

- C 1 , t he trial court signed and entered an “Order” 2 directing the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division to withhold $2, 296.50 from Tommy Wayne Franks’ inmate account pursuant to T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE

1 The trial court directed an “Order” to the TDCJ

- ID in Cause No. 2003

- 569

- C to withhold $12,110.00 from Franks’s inmate account. That “Order” is not before us on this appeal.

2 We note that the although the document is titled and referred to as an “Order,” T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 501.014 (e) (West Supp. 2010) describes the process as a “notification by a court” directing prison officials to withdraw funds from an inmate account. See Williams v. State , 332 S.W.3d 694, 698 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2011, pet. den’d). Therefore, we will refer to the trial court’s “Order” as a withdrawal notification.Franks v. State Page 2

A NN
. § 501.014 (e) (West Supp. 2010)

. The withdrawal notification stated that court costs, fees and/or fines were incurred a s represented in the certified bill of costs, and a copy of the b ill o f c osts was attached to the notification . Franks filed a “Motion to Void
Prior Orders” , and the trial co u rt denied the motion. We affirm. Franks argues in six issues that the trial court erred in denying his motion. We review a trial court's decision whether to deny a motion contesting a withdrawal
notification under an abuse of discretion standard

. Will iams v. State , 33 2 S.W.3d 694, 698 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2011, pet. den’d). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts
without reference to an y guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators,
Inc. , 701 S.W.2d 238, 241

- 42 (Tex. 1985)

. In a proceeding to withhold money from an inmate account, a n inmate is entitled to 1) notice via copy of the withdrawal notification from the trial court and 2) an opportunity to be heard via motion made by the inmate. Harrell v. State , 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex. 2009). Neither need occur before the funds are withdrawn. Id

. Franks filed a motion to void the trial court’s withdrawal notification, and the motion included a copy of the trial court’s withdrawal notification. Therefore, Franks received notice, and the trial court’s denial of his motion indicates that he was afforded an opportunity to be heard. See Williams v. State , 332 S.W.3d at 698. Franks received procedural due process, and we overrule his fourth issue.
A certified b ill of costs imposes a n obligation upon a criminal defendant to pay court costs, whether or not that bill is incorporated by reference into the written judgment. See generally T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . arts. 103.001 and 1 03.003 (WestFranks v. State Page 3

2006); see also T EX
. G OV ' T C ODE A NN . §§ 102.001

- 103. 033. (West 2006 and Supp. 2010);
Williams v. State , 332 S.W.3d at 699. Where court costs are imposed as a matter of legislative directive, they do not need to be included in the oral pronouncement of sentence or the written judgment in order to be imposed upon a convicted defendant. See Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ; Williams v. State , 332
S.W.3d at 699. Such fees are not punitive and are properly collectable by means of a withdrawal notification regardless of a de fendant's ability to pay. See Williams v. State , 332 S.W.3d at 700. The trial court did not err in ordering the withdrawal of court costs
from Franks’ inmate account. Moreover, Franks has waived any challenge to the assessment of court costs and

court

- ap pointed attorney’s fees based upon his indigency. A civil action is not the proper vehicle for contesting the assessment of court costs and court

- appointed attorney fees. The assessment of fees should be challenged on direct appeal from the judgment in t he criminal conviction. A civil action is proper to contest the collection of costs pursuant to T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 501.014 (West Supp. 2010). See Harrell v.
State , 286 S.W.3d at 318

- 19 . We overrule the sixth issue. We need not address issues 1, 2, 3, and 5 because they are not necessary for final disposition of this appeal. T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 47.1. We affirm the trial court’s order denying Franks’ “Motion to Void Prior Orders.”

AL SC OGGINS JusticeFranks v. State Page 4

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opi nion delivered and filed February 8, 2012 [CV 06]