### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 61 -C V

______________________________

I N R E: JEF F REYDA L E M AY NA RD

Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON I n his petition for mandamus relief , J eff rey Dale May

nard has petitioned this Court t o order the Ho no ra

ble Rob e rt

Ne ws om, jud g e of

the 8th Judic ia l D ist

ri c t Co ur t of Ho pk ins Cou

nty , to " c e a se and desist the removal, and/or ordere d remova l, of funds from his inmate trust fund ac count for the purpose of

paying f ines and cour

t costs, and, to immediately return a ll such funds remove d and/or order ed re moved to date." We deny the re quested re lief. May nard ha s alleg ed that funds have bee n rem o v ed fr o m his inmate trust acc ount without his having bee n s erved or provide d with any g arnishment orde r or other order authorizing such action. A trial court may order the attac hment of an inmate ' s trust fund monies as pay ment for that inmate' s court costs, fine s, fee s, restitution, and other oblig ations. T EX . G OV ' T C ODE ANN . § 501.014 (V e rn on 20 04 ). Ho we ve r, " Te xas co ur ts have lon g re c og nize d that pri so ne rs have a pr op e rt y int e re st in the ir inm a te tr

us t a c c ounts. " Har rel l v. S tate , N o . 0 7
- 0 8 0 6 , 2 0 0 9 T e x. L E X I S 3 2 1 , a t * 9 ( T e x. June 5, 20 09 ); Ab du lla h v . S tate , 211 S.W .3d 938, 943 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.). Although a

n inmate is entitled to notice of t he S tate' s attachme nt of t he inmate' s trust funds and a c hance to appea l that taking, the "Constitution does n o t re quire pre -withdraw al notice or a
com preh ens iv e ci vi l garn is hm ent pro ceedi ng." Ha rre ll , 2009 Tex. L EXI S 321, at *15. May nard ha s supplied us with no recor d of the proc eeding s in t h e t ri al cour t, but the
re sp on de nt, Judg e Ne ws om, ha s p ro vid e d c op ie s o f t he tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt a nd an o rder to withdraw inmate trust funds with his response. Both of these documents wer e enter ed September 8,We gr ant the extraordinar y relief of mandamus only when the trial court ha s clea rly abused 1 i t s d i s cr et i o n and the r elator la cks an a dequate appellate reme dy
. In re Team R ocke t, L.P. , 256 S.W .3d 257 (Tex. 2008). 3 2008, and ea ch bea

rs May nard' s signature. These documents reve al that May nard w as shown a c opy of and ma de fully

awa re of the orde r for

withdrawa l of inmate trust funds. May nard ha ving r ece ived all the notice to which he was e ntitled for the State' s attachme nt
o f f u n d s i nh i s t ru s tfu n d ac co u n t , h e h as n o t es t ab l i s h edan y ri gh tt o m an d am u s re l i ef

. A c h al l en ge 1 t o ano r d e r

w i t h h o l d i n g o r a t t a c h i n g a n i n m a t e ' s tr u s tf un d s s h o u l d

b e b y d i r e c ta

p p e a l , n o tb y a petition for writ of manda mus. Id. at *14. We deny May nard' s reque st for mandamus relief.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: J uly 8, 2009 Date D ecide d: J uly 9, 2009