Court Opinion

ID: 2892253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 21:51:13.212679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:06.300006
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-05-0148-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

MAY 31, 2005

______________________________

TERRY WAYNE COCHRAN, APPELLANT

V.

SHEQURITO BALDWIN, ET AL., APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM THE 278TH DISTRICT COURT OF WALKER COUNTY;

NO. 22861; HONORABLE KENNETH KEELING, JUDGE
_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
	On April 28, 2005, this appeal was dismissed because appellant failed to pay the
required filing fee. Tex. R. App. P. 5, 42.3(c). On May 10, 2005, appellant filed a "Motion
for Reconsideration" which we construe to be a motion for rehearing. In the motion,
appellant explains the untimely filing of his affidavit of indigence and asks this Court to
vacate its order dismissing the appeal. (1) Appellant contends that he was unaware a new
affidavit of indigence was required to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.  He has
provided a copy of an affidavit of indigence file-marked as received by the Fourteenth Court
of Appeals on March 28, 2005. (2) 
	As stated in our prior opinion, to be effective an affidavit of indigence must be filed
with the trial court at or before the filing of a corresponding notice of appeal. Tex. R. App.
P. 20.1(c)(1).   A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys with
respect to compliance with rules of procedure.  Holt v. F.F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756,
759 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, pet. denied).  Appellant filed his notice of appeal on February
28, 2005, and the record does not contain a motion requesting an extension of time to file
the affidavit. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b),  20.1(c)(3). See Holt, 990 S.W.2d at 759.
Consequently, appellant is not excused from paying the filing fee this Court is required to
collect. Tex. R. App. P. 5.	
	Accordingly, appellant's motion for rehearing is denied. 

						James T. Campbell
						         Justice

1.      ---    -
    
2.               
       

      Justice