## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 75, 898
I N RE M AT T J OHNS ON, J UDGE OF THE 5 4 DI S TR I CT TH C O U R T O F M cL E N N A N C O U N T Y , T E XA S , R el at or
v. THE TENTH JUDI CI AL DI S TRI CT CO URT O F AP PEALS

A T W A C O , R e s ponde nt
ON P ET I TI ON F OR A W RI T OF M ANDAMUS I N C AU S E NO . 1 0 - 0 7 - 0 0 3 3 1 - CR F RO M T HE TE NT H COURT OF AP P EA LS AT W ACO P RI CE , J ., de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h W OMACK , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H ERVEY andC OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P . J. , f i l ed a di s s ent i ng opi ni on i n w hi c h M E YE RS and H OL C OM B , JJ . , j oi ne d. O P I N I O N I n t hi s ma n d a mus p r o c e e d i n g , M a t t J o h n s o n , J u d g e o f t h e 5 4 Di s t r i c t Cou r tof th M c L e n n a n C o u n ty(re lato r), se e k s re lief f ro m a n o rd e r e n ter e d b y th e T e n th C o u rt o f A p p e a ls in W a c o (re sp o n d e n t). In a m a n d a m u s p ro c e e d in g b e lo w , the T e n th C o u rt o f A p p e a lsJ ohnson - 2

1 See I n re Stev en Frank Goad, 243 S.W .3d 858 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008). 2 SeeT EX . G OV ’ T C ODE § 50 1. 01 4( e ) (“ On no tif ic atio n by a c ourt , the depart men t sha ll withdraw f

rom an inm ate’ s acc ount any amount the i nmate is ordered to pay by order of the c ourt under this subsection. Thedepar tment shall make a pa

y ment under this subsection as order ed by the court to either

the cour t or the par

ty specifie d in the court order
. * * * The department shall make withdrawa l s an d p ay

ments from an inmate ’s ac count under this subsection acc ordingto the followingscheduleof priorities: . .
. (4) as pay ment in full for all order s for court fee s and costs[.] ”). 3 227 S.W .3d 391 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.). r equi r ed J udge J ohns on t o vaca t e an or dert hathe had e nt er ed direct i ng t he Texas D epar t m entof C r i m i nal J us t i ce ( T D C J ) t o w i t hdr aw funds f r om t he i nm at e t r us t - fund
acc ount of St even Fr ank G oad ( r eal par t yi n i nt er es t ) and forw ar d t hos e funds t o M cLennan C o u n ty in s at i sfact i on of an as sess m ent of cost s for a pair of i nd ecenc y w i t h a c h ild convi ct i ons G oad i ncur r ed i n t he 54 D i s t r i ctC our t i n 2003. A l t hough s uch a w i t hdr aw al th 1 of funds i s expr es s l yaut hor i zed by Sect i on 501. 014( e) of t he Texas G over nm entC ode, t he 2
cour t of appea l s never t hel es s hel d, on t he s t r engt h of i t s ow n ear l i eropi ni on i n I n r e Keel i ng , 3 th a t Ju d g e Jo h n so n ’s o rd e r w a s “ v o id ” b e c a u se th e tak in g o f th e f u n d s f ro m G o a d ’s in m a te t rust -fund accou nt purs uan t t o thatprovis io n w as accom pli shed w i t ho ut the d ue-process guar ant ees of pr i or not i ce a nd an opportuni t y t o be hear d. W e gra nt ed Judge Johns on l eave t o fi l e an appl i cat i on for w r i t of m andamus i n t hi s C our t i n or dert o det er m i ne w het hert he
cour t of appe al s abus ed i t s di s cr et i on t o or dert hatm andamus r el i ef.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL P OS TU RE I n J ul yof 2003, G oad pl ed gui l t yt o t w o i ndi ct m en ts c har gi ng hi m w i t h i ndece ncyJ ohnson - 3

4 Both the judgments i n 2 0 0 3 an dthe orde rs in 2006 wer e signed by Judg e Johnson’s prede cessor

in office , Judg e Ge org e Allen. 5 The c ourt of appeals ha d orig inal mandamus jurisdiction by virtue of T EX . C O N ST . art. V, § 6 and T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE § 22. 22 1(b) (1 ). Ap pli c ants are re qu ir e d to pur su e the writ of mand amus , absent a compellingrea son not to, in the courts of appeals before procee ding to this Court. Pa dilla v . M c Da nie l, J ud ge , 2 03 Di str ic t Co ur t , 122 S.W .3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). rd 6 211 S.W .3d 938 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.). w ith a c h ild
. A ttac h e d to e a c h ju d g m e n t w a s a b ill o f c o sts , as se ss in g a to tal o f $ 7 2 4 .5 0 in
co u rt co sts ag ains t G o ad
. M o re th an three y ea rs l ater, in S ep tem b er o f 2 0 0 6 , the tri al co u rt ent er ed an or dercor r es pondi ng t o ea ch ca u se num berdi r ect i ng T D C J t o payt o t he M c L e n n a n C o u n tyD istric t C ler k , o n a g ra d u a ted sc h e d u le, m o n ies from G oad ’s in m a te tru stfu n d ac co u n t i n sati sf

a c tio n o f th e jud g m en t of co u rtco sts ag ains t him
. T h ese o rde rs 4 expr es s l ypurpor t ed t o be ent er ed pur s uantt o Sect i on 501. 014( e) of t he G over nm entC ode. G o a d a ttem p ted to p u rsu e a n a p p e a l o f th e trial c o u rt’s o rd e rs, b u t w h e n th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls not i fi ed hi m t hathi s appea l w as s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al beca us e hi s not i ce o f ap peal w as not tim e ly , h e f

iled a m o tio n to d ism iss th e a p p e a l. A fter n ex t at tem p ti n g u n su cc essf u ll yto p ersu ad e the tr ial co u rt to resc ind it s o rde rs and r etur n hi s m oney , G oad fi l ed an a pp li ca ti o n forw r i t of m andamus w i t h t he cour tof appea l s . I n hi s appl i cat i on he ci t ed I n r e Keel i ngand an opi ni on of t he Texar kana Courtof 5 Appea l s i n A b d u lla h v . S ta te , ar gui ng t hatt he t aki ng of funds fr om hi s i nm at e t r us t - fund 6
a c c o u n t to sa tisf

y c o u rt c o sts a m o u n ted to a g a rn ish m e n t, an d th a t, be c a u se th e R u les o f C iv il P rocedu re that gove rn garni shm ent pro c e e d in g s w e re n o t f o llo w e d , w h ich p ro c e e d in g s w o u ldJ ohnson - 4

7 In re Goad, su

pra , at 859. 8 Judg e John so n c ite s Endicott Johnson Corpo ra t i o n v. Enc yclope dia Press, Inc. , 2 66 U. S. 285 (1924), f

or this proposition. 9 Although this Court lacks jurisdiction to revie w the decisions of the courts of appe als in the exercise of their original jurisdi ction via petit ions for discre tionary revie w, we c an exerc ise our own orig inal jurisdiction in a separate mandamus proceeding to deter mine whether a court of appe als has “cle arly abused its discr et i o n ” in grantingmandamus re lief. State ex re l. Y oung v. Sixth Court of Ap pe als , 236 S.W .3d 207, 209 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). have a ffor ded hi m w i t h not i ce and an oppor t uni t yt o be hea r d, he w as deni ed pr ocedur al due pr oces s . T he cour t of appe al s agr eed, an d o rder ed J udge J ohns on t o r es ci nd t he Sect i on 5 0 1 .0 1 4 o rd e rs a n d re tu rn th e m o n ies th a t h a d b e e n w ith d r a w n f ro m G o a d ’s in m a te tru stfund ac count , hol di ng t hatt he or der s w er e “voi d” bec aus e G oad had be en pr ovi ded no pr i or not i ce oroppor t uni t yt o be hea r d befor e t heyi s s ued. 7 J udge J ohns on t hen fi l ed hi s appl i cat i on forw r i t of m andamus i n t hi s C our t , ar gui ng t hatG oad r ece i ved al l t he due pr o ce ss that h e w as due i n t he cour s e of the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs , and t hatfur t hernot i ce a nd oppor t uni t yt o be hea r d i s unnece s s ar yfol l ow i ng a for m al as s es s m entof cos t s i n t he j udgm ent s . W e fi l ed and s et J udge J ohns on’ s appl i cat i on 8 to d e c id e w h e th e r th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a b u se d its d isc re tio n in re q u irin g h im to re sc in d h is
o r der s t o w i t hdr aw funds fr om G oad’ s i nm at e t r us t - fund acc ount i n s at i s fac t i on o f c o u rt
cos t s . O n fur t herr efl ect i on, how ever , w e hol d t hatw e l ack mandamus j uri s di ct i on and

9 di s m i s s t he w r i t appl i cat i on.J ohnson - 5

10 SeeT EX . C O N ST . Art. V, § 5(c) (“Subjec t to suc h regulations as may be pre scribed by

law, the Court of Criminal Appea ls and the Judges ther eof sha ll have th e power to issues the writ of habea s corpus, a

nd, in criminal law matters, the writs of manda mus, procede ndo, prohibition, and cer tiorari.”)
. 11 853 S.W .2d 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 12 Id . at 43. CRI M I NAL LA W M AT TE R? T h e thre sh o ld q u e s ti o n in an yo ri g inal m an d am u s p roc ee d ing is w h ethe r t h is C o u rt has or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on t o ent er t ai n r el at or ’ s appl i cat i on forw r i t of m andam us . U nder A rticle V , S e c tio n 5 (c ), o f th e T e x a s C o n stitu tio n , th is C o u rt h a s ju risd ictio n to iss u e w rits of m and am us “i n cri m i nal l aw m at t ers . ” W hethert he i nst ant pr oceed i ng i nv olves a 10

“ c r i mi n a l l a w m a t t e r ” i s , we t h i n k , a c l o s e q u e s t i o n u n d e r o u r c a s e l a w c o n s t r u i n g Ar t i c l e V, Sect i on 5( c)
. For r eas ons w e now devel op, w e t hi nk t hat t he m at t er s houl d ul t i m at el ybe l eft t o t h e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s o f

a p p e a l s a n d t h e T e x a s S u p r e m e C o u r t . We th e re f o re h o ld th a t it is n o t a “ c ri m in a l la w m a tte r.”

T hi s C ourt ’ s “C ri m i nal L aw M at t ers ” Juri s prudence T h e c lo se st a n a lo g to th e p re se n t c a se in o u r “ c rim in a l law m a tter” ju risp ru d e n c e is
our opi ni on i n C ur r

y v. W i l s on . T h at ca se in v o lved “a d ispu te ov er a d istri ct j u d g e’s 11 aut hor i t yt o enfor ce a n or der w hi ch w as m andat ed by ” t hen- A r t i cl e 26. 05( e) of t he C ode of C ri m inal P roc ed u re. A rt icl e 2 6
. 0 5 (e) au tho ri ze d co u rt s to o rde r a d ef en d an t w h o ca n af

fo rd 12 “t o offs eti n par t or i n w hol e t he cos t s of t he l egal s er vi ces pr ovi ded, i ncl udi ng anyexpens esJ ohnson - 6

13 F or me r Ar tic le 26 .0 5( e ) ha s be e n ame nd e d a nd re de signate d a s T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . a rt . 26.05(g ).

14 728 S.W .2d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). 15 Id . at 788-89. 16 Id . at 788. 17 Lan for d v . F ou rte e nth Cou rt o

f A pp e als , 847 S.W .2d 581, 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). and cos t s , . . . t o payt he amount t hati t fi nds t hatt he def endan t is a b le t o pay . ” T he 13 pet i t i oner had been acqui t t ed of t he char ges agai ns t hi m and ar gued t hatt he t r i al cour tw as
w ith o u t j u ri sd ict ion to en ter an o rde r un d er A rt icl e 2 6 .0 5 (e ) f o ll o w ing h is acq u it tal
. In hol di ng t hi s t o be a “ cr i m i nal l aw m at t er , ” t he C our t quot ed fr o m o u r o p ini on i n Sm i t h v. F l ack : 14 U ndoubt edl y , t he enf

or cement of an or deri s s ued pur s uantt o a cr i m i nal l aw s t atut e i s a cr i m i nal l aw m at t er as m uch as t he i s s uance of t he or deri t s el f, even i f i t r equi r es t hi s C our t t o exami ne ci vi l l aw s i n t he proc es s . W er e i t ot her w i s e, t hi s C our t ’ s pow ert o deci de cr i m i nal l aw m at t er s w oul d be ser i ous l yer oded or el i m i nated al l t og et her byt he inci den t al presence of ci vil l aw m at t ers . 15 A l t hough w e hel d i n Sm i t h v. F l ack t hatw e have m andamus j ur i s di ct i on “w hen a c r i m i nal l aw is the su bj ectof t he l i t i gat i on, ” w e have el s ew her e obs er ved t hatt hi s l anguage “w as 16
n o t i n tend ed to b e a d ef init ive s tat em en t of

the m ea n ing o f ‘c ri m inal law m att ers.’ ” 17 T h e i ns t antm at t eri nvol ves t he enf or cea bi l i t yof an or derent er ed, not pur s uantt o a pr ovi s i on of t he Penal C ode ort he C o d e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e, but pur s uantt o Sect i on 5 0 1
. 0 1 4 ( e ) o f

th e G o v e rn m e n t C o d e , w h ic h is n o t o n its f a c e “ a c ri m in a l la w s ta tu te .”J ohnson - 7

18 In order of priority , Section 501.014(e) mandates thewithdrawa l of funds from an inmate’s a c c ount f or thefo llo wi ngpurp os e s: (1 ) a s p ay me nt i n f ullfo r all o rd e rs fo r c hil d s up po rt ; (2) a s pay ment in full for all orde rs for restitution; (3) as pay

ment in f

ull f or all order s for reimburse ment o f t h e Tex as Depa rtment of Human Ser

vices for financ ial ass i s t anceprovided for the child’s health nee ds under Chapte r 31, Human Resources Code, to a child of the inmate; (4 ) a s p ay me nt i n f ullfo r all o rd e rs fo r c ourt fe e s a nd c os ts; (5) a s pay ment in full for all orde rs for f ines; and (6 ) a s p ay me nt i n f ullfo r a ny oth e r c ourt

orde r, judgme nt, or

writ. A l t hough i t cer t ai nl y m ay appl y t o r ecove r cos t s emanat i ng fr om j udgm ent s i n crim ina l pr o s e c u t i o n s , Se c t i o n 5 0 1
. 0 1 4 ( e ) d o e s n o t p e r t a i n e x c l u s i v e l y , o r e v e n p r i ma r i l y , t o s uch ju d g m e n ts, o r e v e n to th e re c o v e ryo f c o sts a ss e ss e d in c r im in a l (a s o p p o se d to c iv il) j udgm ent s . O n i t s fac e, t he s t atut e pr ovi des forw i t hdr aw al of i nm at e funds fort he paym ent of chi l d s uppor t , ci vi l fi nes , and cour t cos t s emanat i ng fr om ci vi l j udgm ent s againstan i nm at e. I ndeed, r es ol ut i on of t he ques t i on pr es ent ed byt hi s m andamus a ppl i cat i on r equi r es

18
us t o s crut i ni ze no c r i m i nal
- l aw s t atut e. So, t he quest i on ar i s es : I s t hi s a “c r i m i nal l aw
m at t er ” t hatr equi r es us , i nci dent al l y , t o exami ne ce r t ai n pr ovi s i ons of th e civil la w for
r e s o l u t i o n , o r i s i t p r i ma r i l y a c i v i l l a w ma t t e r t h a t h a p p e n s , i n c i d e n t a l l y , t o e ma n a t e f r o m a ju d g m e n t in a c rim in a l ca se , b u t is n o t o th e rw ise re late d to c rim in a l law a t all? T h e C ou rts of A p p eals W ei gh In T h e c o u rts o f

a p p e a ls th a t h a v e a d d re ss e d th is q u e stio n a re d iv id e d . S o m e h a v e h e ldJ ohnson - 8

19 211 S.W .3d at 939. 20 T EX . C IV . P R AC . REM . C ODE § 31.002. 21 T EX . C IV . P R AC . REM . C ODE § 63.007. 22 Ab du lla h v . S

tate , su pra , at 940-41 &n.5. 23 Id . at 941-43, citing

T EX . R. C IV . P. 657-79. 24

___ S.W .3d ___, 2007 WL 2089365, 07-06-0489- CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, no pet.). t hat i t i s a ci vil m at t er and t herefore subjectt o d i rectapp eal
. O t hers have h e ld th a t iti s a
cr i m i nal m at t er , and, as s uch, i t i s not appea l abl e. I n A b d u lla h v . S ta te , t he T exar kana C our t of A ppeal s ent er t ai ned w hati t deemed “an
unus ual appea l ” fr om an or derw i t hdr aw i ng funds fr om an i nm at e ac countunderSect i on 501. 014( e)
. L i keni ng s uch an or dert o a tur noveror der , o r, alt ern at i vel y , t o a w r i tof

19 20 gar ni s hm ent , t he cour t of appea l s det er m i ned t hat i t w as an appe al abl e or der
. H ol di ng t hat

21 22

w hatSect i on 501. 014( e) es s ent i al l yaut hor i zes i s a garni s hm entp roc ee d ing, t he cour tof ap p ea l s r ever s ed t he t r i al cour t ’ s or derbeca us e t he i s s ui ng cour t had fa i l ed t o pr ovi de t he not i ce a nd oppor t uni t yt o be hea r d t hat i s aff or ded t o defe ndant s i n gar ni s hm entpr ocee di ngs undert he Texas R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. 23 B ut t he A m aril l o and W aco c our t s of appe al s have he l d t hatan or dert o pay
o u tst an d ing co u rtco sts pu rsua n t t o S ec ti o n 5 0 1
. 0 1 4 (e) is e ssen ti all ycrim inal in n ature . In G ro ss v . S ta te , t he A m ar i l l o cour t hel d t hat , beca us e t he at t empt ed appe al fr om a Sect i on 24J ohnson - 9

25 Id . at *1-*2. 26 Zin k v . S tate , 2 44 S.W. 3d

50 8, 50 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —Wa c o 2 00 7, no pe t.) ; Ph illipsv . S tate , 244 S.W .3d 510 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.).

27 Zink, su pra ; Phillips , su

pra ; In re M

artinez , 238 S.W .3d 601, 602 n.1 (Tex. App.—Waco 20 07 , n o p e t.) ; Chu de

j v . S tate , 255 S.W .3d 273 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, no pet.). 28 ___ S.W .3d ___, 2008 WL2714463, No. 04-07-00004- CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio, delivere d July

9, 2008). 5 0 1 .0 1 4 (e ) o rd e r w a s “ c lo se lyre late d to th e c rim in a l ca se ” f ro m w h ich th e c o u rt c o sts
s pr ang, i t s appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on depende d upon r ul es gover ni ng cr i m i nal appea l s ; and, s i nce t her e i s no expr es s s t atut or y aut hor i t y pr ovi di ng for an appea l fr om a Sect ion 501. 014( e)
o rd e r, itis n o t an “ a p p e a lab le o rd e r” f o r p u rp o se s o f a c rim in a l ap p e a l. W ith re sp e c t to its 25 d ire c t a p p e a l ( a s o p p o se d to its o rig in a l m a n d a m u s) ju risd ictio n , th e W a c o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls has fol l ow ed t he exam pl e of t he A m ar i l l o cour t , hol di ng i n a s er i es of ca s es t hatan appe al fr om a Sect i on 501. 014( e) or der “i s a cr i m i nal cas e. ” B eca us e a Sec t i on 501. 014( e) or der 26 i s not , how ever , an appe al abl e or der , t he W aco c our t has di s m i s s ed ea ch of thes e at t empt ed appea l s forl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. 27 M o st re c e n tly , h o w e v e r, th e S a n A n to n io C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, like th e T e x a rk a n a c o u rt, h a s r e j e c t e d t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a n o r d e r u n d e r Se c t i on 50 1
. 0 1 4 ( e ) e ma n a t i n g f r o m a
cr i m i nal j udg m en t is i t s el f a c r i m i nal l aw m at t er . I n R e e d v . S ta te , th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls 28
r eas oned: W hi l e t he or der i n t he i ns t antcas e mayhave a r i s en as a r es ul t of, or i nci dent alJ ohnson - 10

29 Id . at *2. 30 Id . at *3 (“ Havingdeter

mined that this matter is civil , we n ex t addre ss whether the trial cou rt ’s o rd er i s final and a ppeala ble. The tria l court’s orde r in this case w as for the collec tion of court c osts through a

post-judgme nt proce ss. In civil actions, post -judgment order s may be appe aled as final orders if theorder disposes of all matters plac ed bef ore the court. * * * Both g arnishment order s and turnover

order s areappealable. Sc hu ltz v . F ift h J ud . D ist. Ct. O

f A pp e als , 810 S.W .2d 738, 740 (Tex. 1991).”).

31 Id . at *5 t o, a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on, t he t r i al cour t ’ s or derdoes not ar i s e overt he enfor cement of a s t atut e governed byt he Texas C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e. I n f a c t , th e o r d e r s p e c i f

i c a l l yp r o v i d e s “ THE C OU RT EN TERS THI S ORD ER pur s uantt o G over nm entC ode, Sect i on 501. 014 .
. . . ” R eed i s not cont es t i ng th e trial c o u rt’s a u th o rity to a ss e ss c o u rt c o sts a g a in st h im . In ste a d , the d isp u te i s overt he tri al c o ur t ’ s aut hor i t yt o col l ectt he cos t s as s es s ed unders ect i on 5 0 1 .0 1 4 (e ) o f

th e T e x a s G o v e r n m e n t C o d e . T e x . G o v ’t C o d e A n n . § 501. 014( e)
. W e not e t he l egi s l atur e has det er m i ned t h at c os t s i n cr i m i nal j udgme n t s ma yb e c o l l e c t e d t h r o u g h a c i v i l e x e c u t i o n p r o c e s s . Te x . Code
. C r i m . Pr oc. A nn. ar t . 43. 07 ( V er non Supp. 2008)
. A r t i cl e 43. 07 of t he Texas C ode o f C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e pr ovi des i n r el evantpar t : “[i ] n eac h cas e of pecun iary fi ne, and exe cut i on m ayi s s ue fort he fi ne and c os t s . . . . T he e x e c u tio n s h a ll b e c o lle c te d a n d re tu rn e d a s in c iv il a c tio n s . Id
. C o n s e q u e n t l y, w e ar e unabl e t o concl ude t hatt he t r i al cour t ’ s or deri nvol ves a cr i m i nal l aw m at t eras des cr i bed i n C urry . 29 T he cour t of appe al s i n R eed w e n t o n to h o ld (sim ilarlyto th e T e x a rk a n a C o u rt o f A p p e a ls i n A bdul l ah ) t hatt he t r i al cour t ’ s Sect i on 501. 014( e) or derw as appea l abl e, confe r ri ng ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n . O n the m erit s, the c o u rto f a p p ea ls r ejec ted th e T ex ark a n a c o u rt ’s 30

v iew th a t th e g a rn ish m e n t p ro v isio n s o f th e R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re n e c e ss a rilyg o v e rn in al l Sect i on 501. 0 1 4 (e) pr ocee di ngs , but never t hel es s w enton t o hol d t hat , on bal ance , 31 “R eed’ s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e hi s cl ai m s r egar di ng t he mer i t s of t he or derJ ohnson - 11

32 Id . at *6. 33 See, e .g., Booth v. Strippleman , 61 Te x. 37 8, 38 0 (18 84 ) (“ c on sti tut ion s, lik e statut e s, mus t bec on str ue d .
. . wi th t

hevie w o f a

rrivi ngat and

e nf orc ingtheint e nti on

of thec onve nti on .” ); Stine v . S tate , 9 08 S.W. 2d

42 9, 43 1 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ) (plu rality op ini on ) ( “ In inte rp re tin gstatut e s, it i s th e pr a c tic e of

thi s c ourt

to c on c e ntrate on

thelitera l te xt of

a statut e in o rd e r t o a sc e rt a in i ts meaning . * * * This Court should be guide d by the same principle when inter pretingconstitutional prov isi on s. ” ); Ga lla

gh e r v . S tate , 690 S.W .2d 587, 591 (Tex
. C ri m. App. 1985) (“ Turningto the rules of constitutional c onstruction, it is observe d that constitutional provisions which are n ot ambi guo us and

areno t op e n to mor e tha

n one c on str

uc tio n or int e rp re tatio n must beg ive n th e ir fu ll e ff e c t w ith out r e g ard

to t hec on se qu e nc e s. ” ); Coo k v . S tate , 902 S.W .2d 471, 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (“As a

f ir s t s tep , w e att e mp t t o e f f e c tu ateth e inte nt o f

th e f r ame r s o f a c o n s ti tutional amendment, a

nd the voters who a

pproved theamendment.” ) 34 See 12A Tex.J ur.3d Consti tu t i o n al L aw § 25 ( 2004), at 419 (“ if the literal text of a h a v e n o t b e e n h e a rd in a n yf o ru m .” 32 I n t he i ns t antcaus e w e mustdeci de w hi ch vi ew cons t i t ut es t h e co rrect one f or purpos es of const r ui ng our m andamus j ur i s di ct i on underA r t i cl e V , Sect i on 5( c)
. I s t he or der underSect i on 501. 014( e) s o “cl os el y r el at ed” t o t he cr i m i nal j udgm entt hatgave r i s e t o i tt hat
w e ar e compel l ed t o concl ude t hati t i s a “cr i m i nal l aw m at t er ”? O r i s i t a ci vi l
- l aw m at t er that h ap p en s to st em fro m a cri m inal jud g m en t of co n v ict ion ? W e c o n clud e itis th e latt er. C onst i t ut i onal C onst ruct i on A s w i t h s t atut or ycons t r ucti o n , w hen w e cons t r ue a pr ovi s i on of t he Texas C on st i t uti on , w e a re pri ncipal l ygu i ded by t he langu age o f t he p rovi si on i t sel f as t he b est i ndi cat or of t he i nt entof t he fr amer s w ho dr aft ed i t and t he ci t i zenryw ho adopt ed i t . B ut 33 i f t hatl anguage i s l es s t han pl ai n and admi t s of ambi gui t y , w e mayr es or t t o ext r a- t extual fac t or s , i ncl udi ng t he l i kel y adver s e cons equenc es of a pa r t i cul arcons t r uct i on. Fr om t he 34J ohnson - 12

constitutional provision i s unclea r or could lead to a

n absurd result, a court construingthe provision may look outside of the languag e for aid in its int erpr etation.”)
. 35 T EX . C O N ST . art. V., § 3( a) ( emphasis adde d). 36 It is well established that a c onstitut ional provision should not be construe d in isolation, but as it relate s to and interac ts wi th other constitutional provisions. E.g. , Pe irs on v . S tate , 1 4 7 T e x. Crim. 15, 19-22, 177 S.W .2d 975, 977-79 (1944)
. above s ur veyof t he var i ous opi ni ons of t he cour t s of appe al s on this su bject, i t s houl d be
a p p a re n t th a t w h e th e r a n o rd e r u n d e r S e c tio n 5 0 1 .0 1 4 (e ) o f th e G o v e rn m e n t C o d e f its w ith in t he def i ni t i on of “c ri m ina l l aw m at t er s ” underA r t i cl e V , Sect i on 5( c) , of t he Texas C ons t i t ut i on, as cons t r ued by our ow n cas e l aw , i s l es s t han cl earcut . T o cons t r ue “c r i m i nal law m at t ers ” t o em brace t he i ssues present ed i n t he i nst ant m and am us proceed i ng w o u ld hav e, w e t hink, m ost un fort un at e j uri spruden t i al con sequen ces. T o ill u stra te, w e b e g in w ith th e o b se rv a tio n th a t A rticle V , S e c tio n 5 (c ) is n o t th e o n ly pl ace i n t he Texas C ons t i t ut i on t hatdefi nes a par t i cul ar co u r t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on w i t h r efe r ence t o t he phr as e, “cr i m i nal l aw m at t er s . ” A r t i cl e V , Sect i on 3 (a), o f the T exas C ons t i t ut i on defi nes t he appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on of t he T ex as S u p r eme C our t as ext endi ng “t o al l cas es excep ti n cri m i na ll aw m att ers a n d a s o th e rw is e p ro v id e d in th is C o n s titu tio n o r b yla w .” 35 I n deci di ng how to ap p ly“cr i m i nal l aw m at t er s ” forpurpos es of ourow n m andamus j ur i s di ct i on, w e s houl d be mi ndful of t he pot ent i al eff ectof ourconstruc ti o n upon t he S u p re m e C o u rt’s a p p e llate ju risd ictio n . B yd e c lar in g o u r o w n m a n d a m u s ju risd ictio n to 36
r eac h t he i s s ues pr es ent ed he r e , we woul d ver yl i kel yencr oach upon the appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i onJ ohnson - 13

37 See St at ee

xre l. H olm es v . Th ird

Cou rt o f A pp e als , 8 8 5 S
. W
. 2 d

3 8 6 , 4 1 0
- 1 1 ( T e x. C ri m. App. 1994) (Clinton, J ., dissenting) (“c riminal law matters” should not be construed dif fer ently for purposes of Article 5, Sec tion 5 of the Texas Consti tution than for Article5, Section 3).

38 Seenote 27, an te . This Court has long he ld tha tthe right to appeal must be c onfer red by statute. E.g. , Ga lit

z v . S tate , 6 17 S.W. 2d 94 9, 95 1 (Te x. Crim. Ap p. 19 81 ); Rush ing v . S tate , 85 S.W. 3d 28 3, 28 5 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 20 02 ); se eals o Ku tzn e r v . S tate , 7 5 S. W.3 d 4 27 , 4 31 (T e x. Crim. App. 2002) (“ this Court wil l enterta in an appeal when it is ex pressly authorized by

statute and whe n it is related to the ‘standard definition’ of a criminal case .”). And as the Waco Court of A ppeals ha s observe d, “[n] o statute authorizes an appeal f rom an order under section 501.014(e) .” Chudej v. Sta te , su pra , at 273. 39 In order to obtain mandamus relief , a relator mus t establish that he had no a dequatereme dy at la w, and that th e a c tio n h e se e ks to c omp e l is min ist e ri a l State ex re l. Y oung v. Sixth Court of Ap pe als , su pra , at 210. He can make the latter showing by demonstratingthat he has a “cle ar right to the relief

he see ks”—that is to say that “the law

he invokes is def

inite, unambiguo us, and unquest ionably

applies to the indisputable fa cts of the c ase.” Id . I f a c ourt of a pp e a ls gra

nts mandamus re lief upon any lesser showing , i t ab u s es i t s d iscretion and is subjec t to a writ of mandamus from this C ourt. Id ., qu oting Lan for d . v Fo ur te e nth Cou rt o

f A pp e als , su pra , at 586. o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt. 37 W e re w e t o ex erci se our m and am us j uri sdi ct i on i n thi s cause, w e w ou l d essentia lly cutoff a nydefi ni t i ve det er m i nat i on of t he under l y i ng l egal i s s ues i nvol ved

— at leastfor Sect i on 501. 014( e) or der s i s s ued t o col l ectcour t cos t s fr om cr im inal law j udgm ent s . T he
re a so n is s im p le. A s th e c o u rts o f a p p e a ls h a v e u n if o rm ly n o ted , if th e m a tter is c rim in a l in char act er , i t w oul d not be s ubj ectt o di r ectappea l beca us e a Sec t i on 501. 014( e) or derdoes not cons t i t ut e an a ppeal abl e or derundert hi s C our t ’ s j ur i s pr udence
. T he onl yw ayfort he 38
c o u rts o f a p p e a ls o r f

o r th is C o u rt to a d d re ss iss u e s a risin g f ro m su c h a n o rd e r w o u ld b e v ia appl i cat i ons for w r i t of m andamus, as i n t hi s cas e. B ut i n t he mandam us cont ext , w e nee d
n ot r es ol ve t he par t i cul arl egal i s s ue i nvol ved. I ti s oft en s uffi ci ent( and t her efore 39J ohnson - 14

40 See, e .g. , Sta te e

x re l. You ng

v . S ix th C ou rt o f A pp e als , su pra , at 213 (“ we c annot say that the ru le ann ounc e d b y

thec ourt of a pp e a ls i s o f s uc h in du

bit a bleprov e na

nc e that th e tria l c ourt

in this case had a minist eria l duty to apply it to the facts of this ca se to rea ch a pa rticular result in the exercise of

what would other

wise constitute a manif

estly judicial function.”)
. 41 Abdullah , su

pra , at 94 0- 41 & n. 5; Ree d, su pra , at *3. 42 We need not, and do not, express any opinion whether these c ourts of appe als haveresolved the matter c orre c tly
. pr efe r abl e) i n di s pos i ng of a mandam us pr ocee di ng fora cour t m er el y t o concl ude t hatt he
u n d e rl y in g le g a l iss u e is a s y e t u n s e ttle d
. T h e u n d e rl y in g le g a l q u e s tio n , e. g. , w het herdue 40 pr oces s does r equi r e t hat a S ect i on 501. 014( e) or derpr ovi de an i nm at e pr i or not i ce a nd an
o p p o rtu n ityto b e h e a rd , n e e d n e v e r b e d e f in iti v e lya n sw e re d , eith e r b yth e c o u rts o f a p p e a ls or byt his C ou rt , i n the cou rs e of m and am us proceed i ng s. B y c o n t r a s t , t r e a t i n g t h e ma t t e r a s c i v i l i n c h a r a c t e r a l mos t c e r t a i n l y me a n s t h at an
or der under Sect i on 501. 014( e) i s appea l abl e. I n t he cont ext of a di r ect appeal , the l egal 41 q u e s tio n c a n b e a d d re ss e d d ire c tlya n d re so lv e d

— ju st a s it has b e e n r e s o l v e d by t he T exar kana and S an A nt oni o cour t s of appeal s , i n A bdul l ah and R eed
. M or eover , as l ong 42
as t he i s s ue i s not r egar ded as a “c r i m i nal l aw m at t er , ” any i ncons i s t enci es among t he var i ous
c o u rts o f a p p e a ls in a p p ly in g a n d c o n st r u in g S e c tio n 5 0 1 .0 1 4 (e ) to re c o v e r c o u rt c o sts
e ma n a t i n g f

r o m c r i mi n a l j u d g me n t s wo u l d b e s u b j e c t t o f i n a l r e s o l u t i o n b yt h e S u p r e me C our t underi t s appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. A nd i nd eed, th e T e xas S up rem e C ou rtrecent l ygrant ed a p et i t i on for r eview i n justJ ohnson - 15

43 Ha rre ll v. Sta te , 2007 WL2301350 (Tex. App.—Amarillo, delivere d Aug . 13, 2007) (No. 07-06-0469- CR, 07-06-0470-CR), revie w grante d (Aug . 29, 2008).

44 We say prac ticality

beca use of the pote ntial for complication that could arise should we deem an order for TDCJ to withdraw inmate funds pursuant to S ection 501.014(e ) to satisfy criminal c ourt c os ts t o b e its e lf

a “ c ri min a l la

w matte r. ” Con sid e r the fo llo wi nghy po the tic a l: Su

pp os e TD CJ on the same day rec eived two order s, enter ed on the same day , from two distric tco urt s i ntwo dif fe re nt c ounti e s. Th e fi rst ord er ema nate d f ro m a judgme nt i n a

c ivi l c a sea sse ssi ngc ourt c os ts agai n s tthe inmate, while the se cond orde r ema nated f rom a c riminal judgme nt, and also asse ssed c ourt c os ts a g a ins t hi m. B oth

orde rs wo uld be a

uth orize d und e r Sec tio n 501 .0 14 (e )( 4) , an d so T DC J would have no rea dy s t atu t o ry criteria by

which to prioritize them. Woul d any ensuinglitigation over which orde r should take priority in the event of

insufficient funds in the inmate ’s ac count be reg arde d as a c ivil law matter, subject to a later appea l, a criminal law matter, subject only to review by wa y of a writ o f m and amus—o r s omekin d o f hy brid, su bje c t to no late r re vie w at a ll? s uch a c as e. H

arrel l v . S ta te sq u arel ypr es ent s bot h t he ques t i on of w het heran or der 43 pur s uantt o Sect i on 501. 014( e) fort he r ecove r yof cour t s cos t s aft er a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on i s a ci vi l m at t er , and w het her , as s um i ng t hat i t i s , due pr oces s i s vi ol at ed w hen a c our t i s s ues
s uch an or der w i t hout aff or di ng t he aff

ect ed i nm at e not i ce a nd an oppor t uni t yt o be hea r d. W e re w e to c o n s tr u e s u c h a n o rd e r in th e in s ta n t ca u s e to c o n s titu te a “ c ri m in a l la w m a tte r,”
w e w o u ld g e n e ra te a p o ten tial c o n f lict b e tw e e n o u r b if

u rc a ted h ig h e st a p p e llate c o u rts in T exas , s houl d t he S upr eme C our t ul t i m at el yr egar d t he mat t eras ci vi l i n char act er , and t hus
s ubj ect t o i t s ow n appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on ( beca us e not a “cr i m i nal l aw m at t er ”)
. W e t hi nk t hat
a s a m a tter o f

p ra c tica lit y , p u b lic p o licy , an d c o m ityb e tw e e n o u r h ig h e st c o u rts, w e sh o u ld

44 f a v o r a c o n s tr u c tio n o f

“ c rim in a l law m a tters ” th a t w ill k e e p th e lin e s o f d ire c t ap p e llate
r evi ew open, s o t hat t he l egal i s s ues can be confr ont ed di r ect l y and fi nal l y r es ol ved, overone th a t w ill f

o rc e th e a f

f e c ted p a rties to re so rt to e x tra o rd in a ry re m e d ies th a t d o n o t n e c e ss a rilyJ ohnson - 16

45 We n otethat “ [t]heL e g isl ature may c on fe r o ri g inal j uri sd iction o n th e Sup re me Court to issue writs of . . . mandamus in such case s as may be spec ified, except ag ainst the Gover nor of the State.” T EX . C O N ST . art. V, § 3 (a). An d und e r t heGo ve rnme nt C od e , th e Sup re me Court is expressly authorized to issue writs of mandamus ag ainst a cour t of appe als, “a gree able to the principles of la

w re gulating thosewrits[.] ” T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE , § 22.002(a)
. r es ol ve t he under l y i ng l egal ques t i ons and m ay even r es ul t i n for ecl os i ng t he poss i bi l i t yof anyfi nal r es ol ut i on. CO NC L US I ON A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatt he i ns t antpr ocee di ng does not i nvol ve a “ cr i m i nal l aw
m at t er . ” Ther efor e, w e l ack or i gi nal m andamus j ur i s di ct i on. T he appl i cat i on forw r i tof
m andamus i s di s m i s s ed. 45

D el i ver ed: O ct ober29, 2008 P ub l i sh