In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-14-00309-CV 

No. 07-14-00310-CV 

No. 07-14-00311-CV 

________________________

IN RE DANNY LEE SHEAD, RELATOR 

 

 

Original Proceeding Arising from the 181st District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 8461-B, 19,154-B, and 8460-B; Honorable John B. Board, Presiding 

 

September 9, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Danny Lee Shead, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis seeks a 

writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable John B. Board to rescind three orders to 

withdraw funds entered in February 2010 in cause numbers 8460-B, 8461-B and 

19,154-B and return all monies “garnished” without procedural due process. Relator 

also challenges assessment of attorney’s fees in violation of article 26.05(g) of the Code 

of Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2014). 

For the reasons expressed herein, we deny mandamus relief. 
2

BACKGROUND

In 1994, in cause number 8460-B, Relator was granted deferred adjudication 

probation for ten years for indecency with a child. That same year, he was convicted of 

sexual assault in cause number 8461-B, sentenced to ten years, probated, and 

assessed a $1,000 fine. In 2008, in cause number 19,154-B, Relator was convicted of 

failure to comply with sex offender registration, enhanced, sentenced to twelve years 

confinement and assessed a $1,000 fine. 

On February 25, 2010, the trial court entered an Order to Withdraw Inmate Funds

in each of Relator’s three cases pursuant to section 501.014(e) of the Texas 

Government Code. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 501.014(e) (West 2012). Two years later, 

on May 22, 2014, the trial court entered a Nunc Pro Tunc Order to Withdraw Funds in 

each of the three cases. Relator suggests that entry of the nunc pro tunc orders without 

rescission of the 2010 orders is an “attempt by the trial court to confuse and prevent 

relief.” Relator questions the amounts authorized to be withdrawn as well as certain 

items contained in the Bill of Costs in each case.

MANDAMUS STANDARD OF REVIEW

Mandamus relief is extraordinary. In re Braswell, 310 S.W.3d 165, 166 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 2010, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 

L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding)). AMandamus issues only to 

correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there 

is no other adequate remedy by law.@ Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 

1992) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 
3

917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding)). To show entitlement to mandamus relief, a relator 

must satisfy three requirements: (1) a legal duty to perform, (2) a demand for 

performance, and (3) a refusal to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 

1979).

ANALYSIS

A court order to withdraw funds entered pursuant to section 501.014(e) of the 

Government Code authorizes the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to withdraw 

monies from an inmate’s account to satisfy certain financial obligations, including, but 

not limited to, court costs, fees and fines. An order to withdraw funds may be 

challenged by way of a motion to modify, correct or rescind. See Snelson v. State, 326 

S.W.3d 754, 756 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, no pet.). 

In Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2008), the Texas Supreme Court held 

that a withdrawal notification directing prison officials to withdraw money from an inmate 

account pursuant to section 501.014(e) is a civil matter akin to a garnishment action or 

an action to obtain a turnover order. Id. at 317-19. Discussing the due process 

accorded to the appellant, the Court balanced the three factors discussed in Mathews v. 

Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), and found that Harrell 

had "already received some measure of due process." Harrell, 286 S.W.3d at 320. In 

determining whether Harrell was accorded constitutional due process, the Court 

concluded that because Harrell had received notice of the withdrawal (a copy of the 

withdrawal order) and an opportunity to contest the dollar amount and statutory basis of 
4

the withdrawal (a motion to rescind or modify the withdrawal order),1he received all that 

due process required. Id. at 321. The Court added that neither notice nor an 

opportunity to be heard need occur before the issuance of a withdrawal order. Id. The 

Constitution does not require pre-withdrawal notice or a comprehensive civil 

garnishment proceeding. Id. 

This Court has interpreted Harrell as saying that due process requires that an 

inmate have an opportunity to contest the dollar amount and statutory basis of the 

withdrawal by way of a motion to modify, correct, or rescind the withdrawal notification. 

Snelson 326 S.W.3d at 756; Williams v. State, 322 S.W.3d 301, 303-04 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2010, no pet.). The trial court's disposition of such a motion creates an 

appealable order. See Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, 

no pet.) (holding that "only when [the withdrawal notification is] properly challenged and 

denied relief is there an order that is final from which the inmate can appeal"). 

From the documents filed in these original proceedings, it does not appear that 

Relator has any pending motions challenging the withdrawal orders in the trial court. 

Relator has not established that he has no adequate remedy at law and is therefore 

entitled to mandamus relief. Judge Board has no legal duty to perform at this time.

Accordingly, Relator’s petitions for writ of mandamus are denied.

Per Curiam

 

1

The trial court denied Harrell's Motion to Rescind. See Harrell v. State, Nos. 07-06-0469-CR, 

07-06-0470-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6416, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 13, 2007), rev'd, 286 

S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2008).