Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Justices Contreras, Benavides, and Longoria
M. BENAVIDES, Justice 
James Robert Hughes filed a pro se petition for writ of
mandamus in the above causes on March 8, 2017, seeking to
compel the trial court to rescind orders withdrawing funds
from relator's inmate trust account. Relator contends
that the orders regarding the withdrawals lacked due process
because the trial court failed to give relator notice and an
opportunity to respond and the orders allowing the
withdrawals failed to comply with garnishment procedures. In
this regard, relator's argument focuses on the fact that
relator's judgments of conviction do not include the
amount of the costs assessed against him.
defendants have constructive notice of mandatory court costs
set by statute and the opportunity to object to the
assessment of court costs. Cardenas v. State, 423
S.W.3d 396, 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Here, relator's
complaints in this original proceeding raise issues that
encompass both civil and criminal substantive law. The
collection of costs and fees through withdrawal orders
entered pursuant to Section 501.014(e) of the Texas
Government Code is a civil law matter. Armstrong v.
State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011);
see Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009);
Johnson v. Tenth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Waco,
280 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Inmates are accorded
constitutional due process when they receive notice of the
withdrawal and an opportunity to contest the dollar amount
and statutory basis of the withdrawal through filing a motion
to rescind or modify the withdrawal order. Harrell,
286 S.W.3d at 321. Further, neither notice nor an opportunity
to be heard need occur before the issuance of a withdrawal
order. Id. In contrast, other matters pertaining to
costs and fees, such as the assessment of the costs and the
sufficiency of the evidence to support attorney fees, are
criminal law issues. Armstrong, 340 S.W.3d at 766.
And as a matter of substantive criminal law, court costs need
neither be orally pronounced nor incorporated by reference in
a judgment to be effective. Id. at 767; see Weir
v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
gravamen of relator's claims relate to the constitutional
due process of the withdrawal orders, and accordingly, we
will apply a civil standard of review in this proceeding. To
obtain relief by writ of mandamus in a civil case, a relator
must establish that an underlying order is void or a clear
abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy
exists. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d
708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving
both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.,
L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding)
(per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 83-40.
Court, having examined and fully considered the matters
raised in this original proceeding, the limited record
provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that
relator has failed to meet his burden to obtain mandamus
relief. Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of
mandamus in each of these causes is DENIED. See Tex.
R. App. P. 52.8(a).
 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d)
("When denying relief, the court may hand down an
opinion but is not required to do so."); Tex.R.App.P.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum
 These matters arise from trial court
cause numbers 10-9-8456, 11-7-8647, and 12-7-8867 in the 24th
District Court of Jackson County, Texas, and have been
docketed in our Court respectively as original proceedings in
cause numbers 13-17-00130-CV, 13-17-00131-CV, and
13-17-00132-CV. This Court previously denied a similar
petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator. See In re
Hughes, Nos. 13-16-00676-CR, 13-16-00677-CR, &
13-16-00678-CR, 2016 WL 7242843, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus
Christi Dec. 14, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per
curiam) (denying mandamus relief).
 In a criminal matter, to be entitled
to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he
has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm,
and that what he seeks to compel is a purely ministerial act
not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re
Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)
(orig. proceeding); In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701,
704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator
fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition
for writ of mandamus should ...