## NO. 12

- 20

- 00257

- CR

IN THE COUR T OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

LARRY DELTON WARREN , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEA L FROM THE 3RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPINION Larry Delton Warren , acti ng pro se, appeals the denial of his motion to reimburse court costs he alleges were wrongfully withdrawn from his inmate account. We affirm

.

B ACKGROUND On May 20, 2011, Appellant, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded “guilty” to and was convicted of u nlawful pos session of a firearm by a felon. Appellant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. The judgment reflects court costs in the amoun t of $292. On June 7, 2011, the Anderson County District Clerk prepared a Bill of Costs reflecting an amount due of $292. On November 30, 2011, the trial court signed a document entitled “Order to Withdraw Funds” directing the Texas Department of Crimina l Justice (TDCJ) to withdraw the sum of $292 from Appellant’s “Inmate Trust Account.” On August 20, 2020, Appell ant filed a “Motion for Reimbursement of Court Costs.” In his motion, Appellant claims he received notice of the withdrawal order on July 20, 2020. He further argues that he is “entitled to the reimbursement of the sum of $150.00 because the amount charg ed for cour t costs is excessive and not in an amount prescribed and/or authorized by law.” The trial court denied Appellant’s motion , finding:2 . . . that upon the review of the Court files, the Plea

- Bargain paper work (sic) signed by the Defendant and hi s Attorney o f Record reflects that the sum of $292.00 was assessed against the Defendant as court cost[s] in this case.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORD E RED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that the Defendant’s Motion for Reimbursement of Court Costs is hereby denied.

This a ppeal followe d.

A PPEALABLE O RDER

In Harrell v. State
, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009), the Texas Supreme Court held that a
withdrawal notificatio n directing prison officials to withdraw money from an inmate account pursuant to Section 501.014(e) of the Texas Government Code is a civil matter akin to a garnishment action or an action t o obtain a turnover order. Harrell
, 286 S.W.3d at 317

– 19 ; see T E X

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 501.014(e) (West Supp. 2020) (addressing inmate money)

. Discussing the due process accorded to the appellant, the Court balanced the three factors
discussed in Mathews v. Eldridge
, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976), a nd found that Harrell had “already received some measure of due process.” Harrell
, 286 S.W.3d at
320. In determ ining whether Harrell was accorded constitutional due process, the Court
concluded that because Harrell received notice of the withdrawal (a c o py of the withdrawal notification) and an opportunity to contest the dollar amount and statutory basis of the
wit hdrawal (a motion to rescind or modify the withdrawal notification), he received a ll that due process required. Id

. at 321. The Court added t hat neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard
need occur before the issuance of a withdrawal notification. I d

. D ue process requires that an inmate have an opportunity to contest the dollar amo unt and statutory basis of the withdrawal by way of a mot i on to modify, correct, or rescind the
withdrawal notification

. Maldonado v. State, 360 S.W.3d 10, 13 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2010, no pet.)

. The trial court ’ s disposition of such a motion creates an a ppealable order. See Ramirez
v. State
, 318 S.W.3d 906, 9 0 8 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2010, no pet.) (holding that “only when [the withdrawal notification is] properly challenged an d denied relief is there an order that is final from which the inmate can appeal”).3 S T ANDARD OF R EVIEW We review a trial court ’ s decision w hether to deny a motion contesting a withdrawal
notification under an abuse of discretion standard. Maldonado, 360 S.W.3d at 13

. A trial court
abuses its discretion when it acts “without reference to any guiding rules and principles.” Id

. at
13

- 14. Fu r thermore, a trial court abuses its discretion if “it reaches a decision so arbitrary and
unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals
, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985).

C OURT C OSTS Texas prisoner s have a property interest in their inmate accounts. Harrell , 286 S.W.3d at 319; Abdullah v. State , 211 S.W.3d 938, 943 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2007, no pet.). On conviction, the imposition of cour t costs is mandatory unless the only punishment is a fine. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 42.16 (West 2016 ). Court costs assessed against convicted defendants are compensato ry in nature. Armstron g v. State , 340 S.W.3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)

. The Legislature intended them as a non

- punitive “recoupment o f the costs of judicial resources expended in connection with the trial of the case.” Weir v. State , 278 S.W.3d
36 4, 366 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

. Where court costs are imposed as a matter of legis lative directive, they do not need to be included in the o r al pronouncement of sentence or in the written judgment to be imposed on a convicted defendant. S ee id

. at 367.
A certified bill of cost imposes an obligation on a criminal defendant to pay court costs, irrespective of whether that bill is incorporated b y reference into the written judgment. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 103.001 (West 2018 ). A district clerk is authorized to “collect money payable under this title.” See id

. art. 103.003(a) (W est Supp. 2020 ) ; s ee also T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. §§ 102. 0 01

- 103.034 (West 2019 & Supp. 2020 ). Legislatively mandated court costs are properly collectible by means of a wit hdrawal order regardless of ability to pay. Williams v. State , 332 S.W.3d 694, 700 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2011, pet. denied)

. On appeal, Appe l lant urges that he should not be charged more than $13 3 because “Court Costs is fixed by State law.” However, Appe llant cites us no authority for this assertion and offers no explanation as to how the amount of $133 is derived or why the $292 is unauthor i zed

. Rule 38.1(i) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that an appellant ’ s brief “contain
a clear an d concise argument for the contentions made, w ith appropriate citations to authorities4 and to the record.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(i); Ruiz v. State
, 293 S.W.3d 685, 691 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2009, pet. ref ’ d). 1 It is not our duty to review the record, res earch the law, and then fashion a legal argume nt for an appellant when he has failed to do so. Zhang v. Capital Plastic & Bags, Inc. , 587 S

. W.3d 82, 90 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied) ; Miller v.
State , 387 S.W.3d 873, 878 (Tex. App.

— Ama rillo 2012, no pet.) ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38. 1(i). The failure to discuss the evidence that support s Appellant’s complaints, present a clear an d concise argument, or properly cite applicable legal authority results in nothing being presented for
review. See R ocha v. State , 16 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex. Crim. App . 2000); Miller , 387 S.W.3d at
878. Accordingly, Appellant’s issue is overruled.

D ISPOSITIO N Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

J AMES T. W ORTHEN Chief Justice
Opinion delivered August 18, 2021. Panel consisted of Worthen, C. J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 Pro se l itigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L. P. , No. 12

- 16

- 00189

- CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 18 , 2021

NO. 12

- 20

- 00257

- CR

LARRY DELTON WARREN , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXA S , Appellee

Appeal from the 3rd District Court
of Anderson Count y, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 30553 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief s filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED t ha t the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
Jame s T. Worthen , Chief Justice

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J

.