Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Submitted on January 18, 2019
Appeal from the County Court at Law Polk County, Texas Trial
Cause No. CV03351
McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
MCKEITHEN, CHIEF JUSTICE
appeal, pro se appellant David Earl Stanley raises
five issues, in which he asserts that the trial court denied
him due process and failed to follow precedent by signing a
judgment of restitution lien foreclosure. We affirm the trial
underlying criminal proceeding, Stanley was convicted of
arson and sentenced to ten years of confinement, probated for
ten years, and assessed a $1000 fine. See Stanley v.
State, No. 09-10-00067-CR, 2010 WL 4922909, at *1 (Tex.
App.-Beaumont Dec. 1, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). The record reflects that the
trial court's judgment also ordered Stanley to pay
restitution to the victim, American Modern Home Insurance
Company, in the amount of $47, 635.42. When Stanley appealed
that conviction, he challenged the denial of his motion for
speedy trial, the denial of his motion to quash the
indictment, his trial counsel's effectiveness, and the
sufficiency of the evidence. Id.
State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Stanley's
community supervision, and the trial court granted the motion
to revoke and sentenced appellant to ten years of
confinement. Stanley v. State, No. 14-12-00909-CR,
2013 WL 1928777, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] May 9,
2013, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for
publication). Stanley appealed the judgment revoking his
community supervision and imposing sentence, and our sister
Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. Id. The
judgment that revoked Stanley's community supervision and
imposed sentence also ordered Stanley to pay restitution in
the amount of $47, 635.42.
According to the State, Stanley did not pay the restitution
as ordered. The State filed a civil proceeding, in which it
asserted that $4300 in U.S. currency, which was contraband,
had been seized from Stanley on April 16, 2012. The State
contended that in March of 2016, the Polk County District
Attorney's office filed an affidavit to perfect a
restitution lien, in which it sought to perfect a lien
against the $4300 in currency. The affidavit stated that
Stanley is incarcerated, described the underlying criminal
case, and identified American Modern Home Insurance Company
as the entity entitled to restitution. Additionally, the
affidavit stated that the trial court's judgment of
conviction had ordered Stanley to pay restitution to American
Modern Home Insurance Company in the amount of $47, 635.42.
On May 25, 2016, the trial judge signed a judgment of
restitution lien foreclosure, in which it stated that the
restitution lien was perfected and ordered that the State
recover $4300 in currency from Stanley.
appeal, this Court concluded that "the trial court erred
in summarily granting judgment in favor of the State without
notice to Stanley and without allowing Stanley an opportunity
to present argument and evidence[, ]" and we remanded
the cause to the trial court. Stanley v. State, No.
09-16-00264-CV, 2018 WL 356062, at *2 (Tex. App.-Beaumont
Jan. 11, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). On April 2, 2018, the
State requested that the county clerk issue citation to
Stanley with a file-stamped copy of the notice of a hearing
scheduled for June 8, 2018, on the State's restitution
lien foreclosure. The State also filed a brief in support of
its request for a judgment of restitution lien foreclosure.
In its brief, the State again indicated that the 2010
judgment of conviction, in which Stanley's sentence was
probated, as well as the 2012 judgment revoking Stanley's
community supervision, ordered Stanley to pay restitution to
American Modern Home Insurance Company in the amount of $47,
635.42. According to the State, Stanley failed to pay the
required restitution. The State requested that the trial
court find that the restitution lien had been perfected and
order that the State recover $4300 in currency that the Polk
County Sheriff's Department seized from Stanley in 2012.
The trial court signed a judgment of lien foreclosure, and
five issues, Stanley complains that he was denied due process
by the trial court's entry of the 2018 judgment of lien
foreclosure, and he maintains that the trial court failed to
follow precedent. We understand the crux of Stanley's
argument as to all five issues to be that restitution was not
orally pronounced as part of his sentence. As discussed
above, Stanley did not raise an issue asserting that the
trial court's written judgment did not match its oral
pronouncement of sentence, in either his appeal from the
original judgment or the judgment revoking his community
supervision. See Stanley, 2013 WL 1928777, at *1;
Stanley, 2010 WL 4922909, at *1; see also
Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). The judgments which ordered Stanley
to pay restitution have never been reversed or modified, and
they therefore support the trial court's judgment of lien
foreclosure. See generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 42.22 (West 2018). We overrule issues one, two,
three, four, and five, and affirm the trial court's
Stanley's counsel filed an
Anders brief, and Stanley did not file a pro
se response. Stanley v. State, No.
14-12-00909-CR, 2013 WL 1928777, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] May 9, 2013, pet. ref'd) ...