Marcus Antoine Cain, Sr. v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00096-CV
No. 10-22-00097-CV
No. 10-22-00098-CV
No. 10-22-00099-CV
MARCUS ANTOINE CAIN, SR.,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 1992-299-C,
1998-741-C, and 2002-1340-C
and
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009-1506-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In these appeals, Marcus Antoine Cain, Sr. complains about the issuance of four
Orders to Withdraw Funds, three signed in 2018 and one signed in 2012. In letters dated
April 13, 2022, in each appeal, the Clerk of this Court notified Cain that these appeals
were subject to dismissal because it appeared no final, appealable judgment or order had
been signed by the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; see also Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d
315 (Tex. 2009); In re Buhl, 622 S.W.3d 396, 397 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, orig. proceeding)
(procedure necessary to complain about order to withhold funds from an inmate account
described in Harrell: file a motion complaining about the withdrawal order with the trial
court clerk for the trial court that signed the order; if relief requested is denied, then
appeal, which will be a civil proceeding, from that denial). In the same letters, the Clerk
warned Cain that these appeals would be dismissed unless, within 14 days from the date
of letters, Cain filed a response with the Court showing grounds for continuing the
appeals. Cain responded, but his response confirms that we have no jurisdiction because
he failed to comply with the procedure to challenge a withholding order. 1
Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3; 44.3.
Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the
time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.
P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R. APP.
P. 5; TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 51.207(b); 51.208; § 51.941(a). Under these circumstances, we
1
There are numerous procedural problems with these proceedings, including but not limited to, Cain’s
response was not served as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5, and Cain has not paid the
required filing fees nor has he provided a statement of inability to pay (which would have to be
accompanied with the additional filings required by Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code).
Cain v. State Page 2
suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in these cases. TEX.
R. APP. P. 2.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Rose 2
Appeals dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed May 18, 2022
[CV06]
2
The Honorable Jeff Rose, Former Chief Justice of the Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the
Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
Cain v. State Page 3