Danny Shead v. The State of Texas Appeal from 181st District Court of Randall County (concurring memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00164-CV No. 07-15-00165-CV No. 07-15-00166-CV DANNY SHEAD, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 181st District Court, Randall County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 8460-B, 8461-B, and 19154-B Honorable John B. Board, Presiding June 25, 2015 CONCURRING OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Harrell v. State holds that an inmate is entitled to notice of the issuance of a withholding order and an opportunity to be heard regarding the order’s correctness, but neither the notice nor the opportunity to be heard need occur before the funds are withdrawn. 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex. 2009). The Harrell opinion goes on to recognize that the inmate may take the opportunity to be heard by means of a motion to the court issuing the order, and further states that “appellate review should be by appeal, as in analogous civil post-judgment enforcement actions.” Id. I am not prepared to say that every inmate who, like appellant Shead, has a motion challenging a withholding order denied by the trial court without an in-court hearing thereby meets the nonparticipation requirement for a restricted appeal.1 But this record presents a particularly convoluted set of circumstances. On these peculiar facts, and considering that the nonparticipation requirement is to be construed liberally in favor of a right to appeal, 2 I will concur that the nonparticipation requirement should not bar Shead from relief if he is able to demonstrate error on the face of the record. I therefore concur in the Court’s order denying the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal. James T. Campbell Justice 1 See Texaco, Inc. v. Central Power & Light Co., 925 S.W.2d 586, 589 (Tex. 1996) (“a party’s participation in a proceeding decided as a matter of law may be very different than one tried to a jury”). 2 Pike-Grant v. Grant, 447 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
