Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Marcus CAIN, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
ORDER
In what we have determined to be a motion to enforce our judgment in the above case, which was received by this Court on October 23, 2019 and filed on November 18, 2019, Marcus Cain contends the District Clerk of McLennan County erred when it collected extra fees from Cain's inmate account and requests relief from this Court. It appears from the documents attached to this motion that Cain is complaining about the collection of attorney's fees when, as Cain correctly notes, our opinion in this case modified the trial court's judgment to delete the finding that ordered Cain to pay his court-appointed attorney's and investigator's fees. See Cain v. State, No. 10-11-00045-CR, 2011 WL 4837723, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 8159 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 12, 2011, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication).
In response to the motion, the State noted that it had previously provided documentation to this Court that the District Clerk had waived the attorney's and investigator's fees as required.1 It also provided documentation that the trial court had issued a modified withdrawal order in compliance with this Court's opinion.2
We have reviewed the documentation provided by Cain and by the State and determined that the fees about which Cain is complaining in his motion filed on November 18, 2019, have been waived and are not currently being collected by the District Clerk. Moreover, Cain has not paid, directly or by way of deductions from his inmate account, an amount sufficient to pay the court cost that remained due and owing in his criminal case after the deduction as ordered in this Court's judgment. In other words, Cain has not yet paid the cost that he owes in connection with this proceeding.
Accordingly, Cain's motion to aid in the enforcement of this Court's judgment is denied.
FOOTNOTES
1. This documentation was provided to the Court on February 5, 2019.
2. To challenge a withdrawal order such as this, see In re Buhl, Nos. 10-19-00478-CR, 10-19-00482-CR, 2020 WL 103808, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 102 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 8, 2020, order) (publish).
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 10-11-00045-CR
Decided: January 29, 2020
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)