Opinion
No. 06-07-00112-CV
Date Submitted: November 14, 2007.
Date Decided: November 15, 2007.
Original Mandamus Proceeding.
Before MORRISS, C.J., CARTER and MOSELEY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jeffrey Scott Hatfield has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus which names the Honorable Robert Newsom, presiding judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court of Hopkins County, Texas, as Respondent. On or about January 30, 2006, the Eighth Judicial District Court of Hopkins County issued an order under statutory fiat directing payment be made from Hatfield's inmate trust fund to reimburse the county for "court costs, fees and/or fines." The trial court's order states that it is based on Section 501.014(e) of the Texas Government Code, which allows the Department, on "notification by a court," to withdraw from an inmate's trust account any amount the inmate is ordered to pay by order of the court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.014(e) (Vernon 2004); see also In re Keeling, 227 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex.App.-Waco 2007, orig. proceeding); Abdullah v. State, 211 S.W.3d 938, 943 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (finding inmate was not afforded procedural due process). Hatfield argues he was not afforded due process, claims the underlying judgment is void, and requests return of all funds garnished from his inmate trust account.
In our disposition of Hatfield's petition, it is not necessary for us to decide the petition on its merits or whether mandamus is an available remedy. In its response to Hatfield's petition, the trial court has submitted an order declaring the underlying judgment against Hatfield void. In light of the trial court's order, we dismiss as moot Hatfield's petition for writ of mandamus.
We note Hatfield also requests the return of the funds removed from his trust account. The record, though, does not indicate the amount which has actually been removed from Hatfield's trust account. It is the relator's burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198-99 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. To the extent such relief might be available, we also deny Hatfield's petition for failure to comply with Rule 52.3.