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 REHEARINGOn 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