In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-03-372 CV
____________________
DAN THOMAS, Appellant
V.
MS. SKINNER, CO3, Appellee
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 18091
Dan Thomas appeals the denial of his motion to discharge costs in his suit against Ms. Skinner, CO3. We questioned our jurisdiction. Thomas's reply asserts that the trial court's order is an appealable final order.
Thomas appealed this suit, Cause No. 18091 to this Court in Appeal No. 09-00-549 CV. The appeal was transferred to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals and docketed as Appeal No. 13-01-021 CV. On August 31, 2001, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals addressed the issue of taxation of costs in its opinion affirming the trial court's judgment. See Thomas v. Skinner, 54 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied). A petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court was denied, and the Thirteenth Court of Appeals issued its mandate on May 9, 2002. On March 28, 2003, Thomas filed a motion titled "Petition to Discharge Court Ordered Cost Due to Inability to Pay Such Costs # at $213.00." The motion alleged that the judgment for costs should be discharged pursuant to a statute applicable to criminal cases. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 43.09(f) (Vernon Supp. 2003) ("A court may require a defendant who is unable to pay a fine or costs to discharge all or part of the fine or costs by performing community service."). The trial court denied the motion on April 14, 2003.
An issue relating to a judgment for costs must be brought in the regular appeal. See Smith v. State, 500 S.W.2d 682 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1973, no writ). Thomas actually raised the cost issue in his appeal, and lost. The judgment in this case is now final. The order identified in the notice of appeal is not amenable to a new appeal. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered September 25, 2003
Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.
1. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.