In Re: Jeffrey Scott Hatfield--Appeal from of County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-07-00144-CV
______________________________
IN RE:
JEFFREY SCOTT HATFIELD
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jeffrey Scott Hatfield has filed a pro se (1) petition for writ of mandamus which names the Honorable Robert Newsom, presiding judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court of Hopkins County, Texas, as Respondent. On or about January 30, 2006, the Eighth Judicial District Court of Hopkins County issued an order under statutory fiat directing payment of $628.00 be made from Hatfield's inmate trust fund to reimburse the county for "court costs, fees and/or fines." The trial court's order states that it is based on Section 501.014(e) of the Texas Government Code, which allows the Department, on "notification by a court," to withdraw from an inmate's trust account any amount the inmate is ordered to pay by order of the court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 501.014(e) (Vernon 2004); see also In re Keeling, 227 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex. App.--Waco 2007, orig. proceeding); Abdullah v. State, 211 S.W.3d 938, 943 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (finding inmate was not afforded procedural due process).

On or about July 16, 2007, Hatfield filed a restricted notice of appeal. This Court dismissed Hatfield's appeal as untimely. See Hatfield v. State, No. 06-07-00093-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7469 (Tex. App.--Texarkana Sept. 14, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). Hatfield then filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to declare the order void. After the trial court signed an order declaring void the order directing payment, this Court denied Hatfield's petition as moot. In re Hatfield, No. 06-07-00112-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 8993 (Tex. App.--Texarkana Nov. 15, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). In denying Hatfield's petition, this Court noted the record was inadequate. Id.

In this second petition for writ of mandamus, Hatfield has attached a document dated January 1, 2007, showing a balance of $437.19 owed for "Texas Court Fee/Charge." Hatfield argues we should subtract the balance owed on January 1, 2007, from "$638" (2) to calculate the amount paid under the void order. Hatfield requests this Court to order the trial court "to refund exactly $180.81 dollars to the Relator's trust fund which was erroneously seized."

Mandamus relief is appropriate only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law (which is often described as a "ministerial" act), and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A remedy is not inadequate merely because it may involve more expense or delay than obtaining an extraordinary writ. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842. "With respect to resolution of factual issues or matters committed to the trial court's discretion, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court." Id. at 839-40. "The relator must establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision." Id. Mandamus is not appropriate when there are factual disputes. In re Angelini, 186 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. 2006).

Hatfield has failed to show he has asked the trial court for relief and the trial court refused. "A party's right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for some action and a refusal of that request." In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1999). Hatfield must first request relief from the trial court.

We further deny Hatfield's petition for failure to comply with Rule 52.3. It is the relator's burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198-99 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. Hatfield's petition for mandamus relief is not accompanied by a certified or sworn copy of the motion that is the subject of his complaint, as is required by Rule 52.3(j)(1)(A) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)(1)(A). Even if we were to take judicial notice of the records in the related appeal and petition for writ of mandamus, the record would still be inadequate.

 

For the reasons stated, we deny Hatfield's petition for writ of mandamus.

 

Jack Carter

Justice

 

Date Submitted: December 4, 2007

Date Decided: December 5, 2007

1. The law is well settled that "[a] party proceeding pro se must comply with all applicable procedural rules" and is held to the same standards as a licensed attorney. Weaver v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 942 S.W.2d 167, 169 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1997, no pet.). "On appeal, as at trial, the pro se appellant must properly present his or her case." Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2004, pet. denied). We review and evaluate pro se pleadings with liberality and patience, but otherwise apply the same standards applicable to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Foster v. Williams, 74 S.W.3d 200, 202 n.1 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, pet. denied).

2. As noted above, the order specified $628.00 to be garnished from Hatfield's account. We note Hatfield's calculation is also not mathematically correct.