Marcus Eugene Boone v. State ( 2017 )

FILE COPY
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00064-CV
NO. 02-17-00065-CV
NO. 02-17-00066-CV
NO. 02-17-00067-CV
NO. 02-17-00068-CV
MARCUS EUGENE BOONE APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE
------------
FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. 1413540D, 1413538D, 1413539D, 1412646D, 1411974D
------------
ORDER
------------
In each case, Appellant Marcus Eugene Boone challenges the trial court’s
order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account. See Palomo v. State, 322
S.W.3d 304, 305 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, order), disp. on merits, Nos.
07-10-00181-CV, 07-10-00182-CV, 07-10-00183-CV, 2010 WL 5250874 (Tex.
FILE COPY
App.—Amarillo, no pet.); see also Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 n.1 (Tex.
2009). Each order to withdraw is Attachment A to its corresponding May 5, 2016
judgment, “incorporated into the judgment[,] and made a part thereof.” The
amount of court costs in each order to withdraw does not match the
corresponding amount of court costs in the respective judgment and bill of cost.
Instead, the amount of court costs in each order to withdraw is the cumulative
total of court costs for all five cases. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal in
each case, and both parties have filed briefs.
We are unable to determine whether Appellant’s rights to due process
have been fully satisfied in the trial court. See Harrell, 286 S.W.3d at 321;
Palomo, 322 S.W.3d at 307. Appellant received notice via the order to withdraw
in each case. See Harrell, 286 S.W.3d at 321; Palomo, 322 S.W.3d at 307. He
also appears to have had “an adequate opportunity to compare the amounts
assessed by the trial court in the underlying criminal proceedings to the amounts”
listed in each order to withdraw. See Palomo, 322 S.W.3d at 307; see also
Harrell, 286 S.W.3d at 321. We are unable to determine, however, whether
Appellant has been . . . “afforded an adequate opportunity to alert the court of
any alleged errors. Because the trial court has not entered an appealable order
either granting or denying a motion to confirm, modify, correct, or rescind the
prior withdrawal notification, we find Appellant’s notices of appeal to be
premature.” Palomo, 322 S.W.3d at 307 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
2
FILE COPY
Accordingly, we abate these appeals for 90 days from the date of this
order to allow Appellant time (1) to notify the trial court of any alleged error by
filing, as appropriate, a motion to modify, correct, or rescind the order to withdraw
funds in each case; (2) to present that motion to the trial court; (3) to schedule
any necessary hearing; and (4) to obtain from the trial court a written, appealable
order disposing of the motion in each case. See id. at 307–08. All appellate
deadlines in each case will run from the signing of the written, appealable order.
The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the
attorneys of record, the appellant, the State, the trial court judge, the trial court
clerk, and the court reporter.
DATED March 21, 2017.
PER CURIAM
3