## 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 3 RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEX AS

MEMORANDUM OPINIO N 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.

I N MATE L ITIGATION

– C HAPTER 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 pea ce, or small claims court or an appellate court in which an affidavit of indigence is also filed. T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 14.002 (West Supp. 2014). This means that the requirements of Chapter 14 apply when inmates file an
action in a trial cou rt 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 six2

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 wh ich 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 res ult in dismiss al 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

– Institutiona l 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 appella te 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.

C ONCLUSION Hinojosa did not comply with the Chapter 14 requirements for an affidavit of previous filings and an inmate trust a ccount 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 )

## COU RT 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 di smissed 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

.