in Re William Dale Perkins
This text of in Re William Dale Perkins (in Re William Dale Perkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________ NO. 09-19-00076-CR ____________________
IN RE WILLIAM DALE PERKINS ________________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 75th District Court of Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 32009 and 32258 ________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a mandamus petition William Dale Perkins complains that his inmate
account statement reflects that he owes court fees, presumably from court costs
assessed in one or more of his criminal cases from Liberty County. Perkins asks this
Court to compel the trial court to prohibit the prison system from collecting court
costs from his inmate account.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, Perkins must demonstrate that he has no
adequate remedy at law through an appeal and that what he seeks to compel is a
ministerial act. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App.
1 2013). Perkins has not shown that he has been charged a fee that is not authorized
by statute, or that cannot be collected if he is indigent. See generally Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. Ann. arts. 42.16 (West 2018) (The judgment “shall also adjudge the costs
against the defendant, and order the collection thereof as in other cases.”); see also
Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 350, 355 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, no pet.) (Court costs
other than attorney’s fees were not preconditioned on ability to pay.). Furthermore,
Perkins has not shown that the trial court had a legal duty to perform a ministerial
act, was asked to do so, and failed or refused to act. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708,
710 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Additionally, Perkins failed to
demonstrate that he has no adequate remedy by appeal if fees are collected from his
inmate account. See Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex. 2009). We deny the
petition for a writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM
Submitted on March 26, 2019 Opinion Delivered March 27, 2019 Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re William Dale Perkins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-dale-perkins-texapp-2019.