Smith v. McCorkle, 94-1199
| Decision Date | 30 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1199,94-1199 |
| Citation | 895 S.W.2d 692 |
| Parties | 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 462 Rodney Wayne SMITH, Relator v. The Honorable Lamar McCORKLE, Judge, the Honorable Scott Brister, Judge, and Katherine Tyra, District Clerk, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Rodney Wayne Smith, Rosharon, pro se.
Frank E. Sanders, Glen Van Slyke, and Mike Driscoll, Houston, for respondents.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Rodney Wayne Smith, an inmate in the Texas Department of Corrections, filed suit in Harris County against administrators of the Harris County Hospital District. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and Smith filed a timely notice of appeal and affidavit of inability to pay costs. The Harris County District Clerk contested Smith's request to proceed in forma pauperis, alleging that Smith was not too poor to pay costs and that Smith had "failed to file an Affidavit as required by Rule 49(3)" of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 1 After giving notice to Smith, the trial court held a hearing and orally sustained the contest to Smith's affidavit. No written order was entered in the record, although the docket entries reflect that Smith's motion was "denied as presented." After unsuccessfully seeking mandamus in the Court of Appeals, Smith requested mandamus in this Court.
In the absence of a written order sustaining a contest, the allegations of the affidavit are taken to be true. See TEX.R.APP.P. 40(a)(3); Ranier v. Brown, 623 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1981 orig. proceeding). A docket entry does not constitute a written order. See McCormack v. Guillot, 597 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tex.1980). Taken as true, the allegations in Smith's affidavit conclusively demonstrate his inability to pay.
We note that the contest challenges Smith's failure to submit a sworn affidavit. However, section 132.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code permits inmates to file unsworn declarations that follow a prescribed form. A declaration that substantially complies with the statute is a proper substitute for an affidavit of inability to pay. See Thomas v. Pankey, 837 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1992, no writ). Smith's declaration complied in every respect with section 132.001.
Mandamus is the appropriate remedy when a contest to an affidavit of inability to pay is improperly sustained. Allred v. Lowry, 597 S.W.2d 353, 354 n. 2 (Tex.1980). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 122, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Taylor
...circumstances not applicable to this proceeding. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001(a) (Vernon 1997); Smith v. McCorkle, 895 S.W.2d 692, 692 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding). Richard's unsworn declaration substantially complies with the statutory requirements. See Tex. Civ. Prac. ......
-
Verburgt v. Dorner
...rule or rules and appear targeted at an apparent proclivity for dismissing for want of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Smith v. McCorkle, 895 S.W.2d 692, 692 (Tex.1995) (per curiam) (unsworn declaration substantially complied with statute and perfected appeal); Maxfield v. Terry, 888 S.W.2d 809, 8......
-
In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd.
...writ ref'd n.r.e.). A docket-sheet entry cannot contradict or take the place of a written order or judgment. See, e.g., Smith v. McCorkle, 895 S.W.2d 692, 692 (Tex.1995); Faulkner v. Culver, 851 S.W.2d 187, 188 (Tex.1993) (holding that docket entry granting new trial was not substitute for ......
-
Teixeira v. Hall
...The language in the declaration is required to substantially comply with the statute in order to be found adequate. See Smith v. McCorkle, 895 S.W.2d 692 (Tex. 1995). Section 132.002 requires the declaration be subscribed by the person making the declaration as true under penalty of perjury......