In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-21-00075-CR 

 

THOMAS RAY MAYHEW, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 320th District Court 

 Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 58,954-D, Honorable Pamela C. Sirmon, Presiding 

November 4, 2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant Thomas Ray Mayhew was convicted in 2009 of criminal trespass, a class 

B misdemeanor. No direct appeal of that conviction was filed in this Court. The bill of 

costs associated with the original 2009 judgment imposed felony costs as well as courtappointed attorney’s fees despite Mayhew’s apparent status as indigent.

In 2020, the State apparently withdrew funds from Mayhew’s inmate trust account. 

At that point, Mayhew began to communicate with the trial court and the trial court clerk 

regarding the propriety of costs and fees assessed. The trial court clerk provided Mayhew 
2

some relief in the form of a revised bill of costs that correctly included misdemeanor costs 

but still included court-appointed attorney’s fees. Following Mayhew’s dissatisfaction with 

that revised bill of costs and alerting the trial court to his remaining concerns including 

certain fees and not having credit toward court costs for the time he spent in jail, the trial 

court entered a judgment nunc pro tunc signed March 22, 2021, in which the trial court 

revised the bill of costs to delete a certain fee.

Mayhew, still displeased with the bill of costs, filed his notice of appeal with regard 

to the March 22nd judgment nunc pro tunc. Subsequent to his filing, the trial court entered 

another judgment nunc pro tunc signed July 26, 2021, in which it again revised the bill of 

costs, this time indicating that Mayhew owed nothing in terms of fees after having received 

credit for time served. The trial court also issued an order directing the district clerk to 

return to Mayhew $140.70, the amount of funds that had been withdrawn to pay fees in 

accordance with the prior judgments. 

The aforementioned remedial acts by the trial court appear to have rendered moot 

the concerns voiced by appellant. See Thias v. State, No. 07-12-00513-CR, 2014 Tex. 

App. LEXIS 12635, at *7–8 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 20, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(recognizing incorrect-fee issue as moot when bill of costs has been corrected to reflect 

proper amount of fee). That is, since his complaints about the fees and costs were 

resolved, this appeal no longer involves a live controversy. The proper disposition in such 

a circumstance is to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Fouke v. State, 529 S.W.2d 

772, 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (dismissing appeal as moot because defendant 

voluntarily paid fine and costs complained of in appeal); Angulo v. State, No. 06-20-

00016-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 3160, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 16, 2020, no
3

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (involving the imposition of court costs in 

an amount not supported by a proper certified bill of costs and concluding that the appeal 

was rendered moot when a proper bill of costs was later included).

By letter dated October 5, 2021, this Court directed Mayhew to inform us whether 

other complaints remain for disposition and provide grounds for continuing his appeal. 

Said response was due October 15th, but to date none has been received. Consequently, 

there being no live controversy for the Court to resolve, we dismiss this appeal for want 

of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.