NO. 12-14-00334-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BENITO HINOJOSA, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 3RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Benito Hinojosa, an inmate, appeals the trial court’s order authorizing the withdrawal of 

funds from his inmate trust account. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 14 

applies to this appeal. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

INMATE LITIGATION–CHAPTER 14

Effective January 1, 2012, Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 

was amended to apply to an action, including an appeal or an original proceeding, brought by an 

inmate in a district, county, justice of the peace, or small claims court or an appellate court in 

which an affidavit of indigence is also filed. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.002 

(West Supp. 2014). This means that the requirements of Chapter 14 apply when inmates file an 

action in a trial court just as when they file an appeal or an original proceeding in an appellate 

court. See id.

Chapter 14 requires the inmate to file an affidavit or declaration “relating to previous 

filings” in which the inmate must detail all previous actions filed pro se, other than a suit under 

the Texas Family Code. Id. § 14.004(a) (West Supp. 2014). The affidavit or declaration must be 

accompanied by a certified copy of his “inmate trust account statement” that “reflect[s] the 

balance of the account at the time the claim is filed and activity in the account during the six 
2

months preceding the date on which the claim is filed.” Id. §§ 14.004(c) (West Supp. 2014); 

14.006(f) (West 2002). The filings required under Chapter 14 are “an essential part of the 

process by which courts review inmate litigation.” Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex. 

App.–Waco 1996, no writ).

The failure to file the affidavit or declaration with the required information about 

previous filings or the inmate trust account statement can result in dismissal without notice or 

hearing. See, e.g., Amir-Sharif v. Mason, 243 S.W.3d 854, 857 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2008, no 

pet.); Thompson v. Rodriguez, 99 S.W.3d 328, 330 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.). 

Further, when an inmate fails to comply with requirements for the affidavit or declaration of 

previous filings, the trial court may assume that the current action is substantially similar to one 

previously filed by an inmate and thus is frivolous. Bell v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice–

Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). 

We see no reason why this caselaw interpreting the Chapter 14 requirements as they apply to 

actions filed in trial courts should not also now apply to actions filed in appellate courts. See 

Douglas v. Turner, 441 S.W.3d 337, 338 (Tex. App.–Waco 2013, no pet.).

In this action, Hinojosa did not file an affidavit of previous filings accompanied by a 

certified copy of his inmate trust account. Because the requirements of Chapter 14 now apply to 

inmate proceedings in the courts of appeals, caselaw permits us to dismiss Hinojosa’s appeal 

without notice. 

CONCLUSION

Hinojosa did not comply with the Chapter 14 requirements for an affidavit of previous 

filings and an inmate trust account statement. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous. 

See Bell, 962 S.W.2d at 158. 

Opinion delivered November 19, 2014.

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

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 19, 2014

NO. 12-14-00334-CV

BENITO HINOJOSA,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 3rd District Court 

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 29812)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as frivolous; and that this decision be certified 

to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

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