Suzanna Eckchum A/K/A Susan Eckhert v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 6, 2015·No. 03-15-00107-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

03-15-00107-CV

4404588

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

3/6/2015 2:57:19 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

NO. 03-15-00107-CV

FILED IN

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

3/6/2015 2:57:19 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

Clerk

SUZANNA ECKCHUM

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF HAL KETCHUM Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF COMAL COUNTY CAUSE NO. C2014-1690C

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO CHALLENGE TRIAL COURT ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST TO APPELLANT’S AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY

Mysha Lubke BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. State Bar No. 24083423 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 322-2500 (512) 322-2501 (fax) mysha.lubke@bakerbotts.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Active 18038052.1 1

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant Suzanna Eckchum1 respectfully requests that this Court

deny Court Reporter Dana Dance’s Contest to the Affidavit of Indigency Filed by

Suzanna Eckchum pursuant to Rule 20.1(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. The trial court erred in sustaining the court reporter’s contest to

Appellant’s affidavit of indigence for two reasons. First, Appellant’s completed

and verified affidavit shows that she is unemployed, disabled, and receives public

benefits, which is all sufficient to prove indigence. Second, Appellant had no

notice of the hearing on the contest and thus had no opportunity to offer testimony

about the contents of her affidavit as proof of indigence. For these reasons,

Appellant respectfully requests that this Court grant Appellant’s motion to

challenge, deny the court reporter’s contest, and order court reporter Dana Dance

to prepare the reporter’s record for appeal at no cost to the indigent appellant.

Appellant has requested that the trial court reconsider its order sustaining the

contest.

1 Respondent respectfully notes that the style of the case in the trial court order listed her name incorrectly, and the name should be listed as Suzanna Eckchum.

Active 18038052.1 2

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE

After a hearing on January 16, 2015, the trial court entered a Stalking

Protective Order against Appellant on January 22, 2015. I CR 18-21. Proceeding

pro se2, Appellant timely filed her first Notice of Appeal on February 12, 2015.3

Id. at 24. On that same date, Appellant filed an “Affidavit of Indigency,” in which

she swore that she receives government entitlements, has been unemployed since

2010, has no property of any value, and cannot pay costs. Id. at 22-23. This is the

affidavit that Court Reporter Dana Dance timely contested on February 23, 2015.

The trial court set and held a hearing on the contest on February 25, 2015 at 1:30

p.m. C.R. Supp. I. Notice for this hearing was sent by counsel for Court Reporter

Dana Dance by certified mail, postmarked February 23, 2015. Id. Delivery of the

notice was not attempted until February 25, 2015 4—after the hearing. Ex. A.

2 Appellant had trial counsel, but represented herself after trial and before engaging appellate counsel on February 26, 2015 after qualifying for pro bono appellate representation, without contingent fee, by a volunteer attorney through the Third Court of Appeals Pro Bono Program. Counsel has not agreed to pay or advance any costs. 3 Appellant filed multiple documents entitled “Notice of Appeal,” but each appears to be different. The Notice of Appeal filed on February 17, 2015 also included a request for a court transcript. I CR 25. And the Notice of Appeal filed on February 19, 2015 also included a request for a new trial. Id. at 26. 4 Appellant received the letter sent via First Class Mail as well as the notice of a Certified mailing on the evening of February 26, 2015. However, accepting that the U.S. postal service attempted to deliver at least the certified letter on February 25, 2015, Appellant refers to that date as the date of receipt.

Active 18038052.1 3

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

The trial court abused its discretion in granting the contest as the

evidence before the court proved Appellant’s indigence. The trial court also failed

to give Appellant due process in entering an order sustaining Court Reporter Dana

Dance’s Contest to the Affidavit of Indigency filed by Suzanna Eckchum without

notice of the hearing and without permitting Appellant the opportunity to be heard.

I. The Trial Court Record As A Whole Shows Appellant Is Indigent and Unable to Pay Costs Even without Appellant’s appearance at the hearing on the contest,

evidence of Appellant’s indigence was properly before the trial court under Rule

20.1. “The purpose of Rule 20.1 is to permit parties to proceed without paying

filing fees if they are unable to do so, and we have long interpreted the Rules of

Appellate Procedure liberally in favor of preserving appellate rights.” Higgins v.

Randall County Sheriff's Office, 257 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. 2008) “The test for

determining indigence is straightforward: Does the record as a whole show by a

preponderance of the evidence that the applicant would be unable to pay the costs,

or a part thereof, or give security therefor, if he really wanted to and made a good-

faith effort to do so?” Id. at 686. Moreover, “[t]he fact that any individual is

dependent upon the charity of the public afforded through the various welfare

programs is, by itself, prima facie evidence that the person is financially unable to

Active 18038052.1 4 pay the court costs or give security therefor.” Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Honorable

Thirteenth Court of Appeals, 934 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Tex. 1996) (quoting Goffney v.

Lowry, 554 S.W.2d 157, 159-60 (Tex. 1977). 5

Yet the court reporter did not contest the accuracy or contents of the

affidavit showing prima facie evidence of Appellant’s indigence. The court

reporter did not contest the indigent Appellant’s dependence on public welfare

programs such as SNAP food benefits listed in her affidavit or that her expenses

exceeded income sourced solely from government benefits. C.R. Supp. I. She

only contested the completeness of Appellant’s affidavit specifically with regards

to her income, personal property, and cash. See id. But an indigent appellant is

not required to attach any documents to the affidavit or address every factor in

Rule 20.1(b) because “[s]atisfaction of the indigence rules should be liberally

construed in favor of the right to appellate review.” Moreno v. Perez, 363 S.W.3d

725, 743 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); see also In re C.H.C.,

331 S.W.3d 426, 430 (Tex. 2011) (taking as true the allegations in an affidavit of

indigence although the indigent appellant did not attach any documents to her

affidavit or address every factor in Rule 20.1(b), but did swear that she had a

negative cash flow and no investments or cash to help pay for a record).

5 The Texas Supreme Court has declined to rule on whether this standard is applicable in appellate courts under Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 as it is in trial courts under Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. In re C.H.C., 331 S.W.3d 426, 430 n.7 (Tex. 2011). Active 18038052.1 5

Moreover, Appellant’s affidavit was complete and indicated that she

would not be able to afford the costs of appeal. As to personal property and cash,

Appellant left blank the lines for financial assets, other property, and real estate

because she has none of these items. Evidence before the trial court showed that

Appellant rents an RV situated on a local ranch. She owns no property, so it

follows that she would have nothing to report for real estate and the like, and those

lines would be blank. Similarly, as to income, Appellant left blank the boxes that

did not apply to her. She has been unemployed since 2010, so it follows that she

would not have anything to provide in the spaces for “wages,” “job title,”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Suzanna Eckchum A/K/A Susan Eckhert v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Suzanna Eckchum A/K/A Susan Eckhert v. State (Suzanna Eckchum A/K/A Susan Eckhert v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff's Office
257 S.W.3d 684 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
Goffney v. Lowry
554 S.W.2d 157 (Texas Supreme Court, 1977)
City of Houston v. Fore
412 S.W.2d 35 (Texas Supreme Court, 1967)
Monica Moreno v. Ernesto Perez
363 S.W.3d 725 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)
In the Interest of M.A.H.
98 S.W.3d 745 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
In the Interest of C.H.C.
331 S.W.3d 426 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)