Summary
denying mandamus challenging portion of judgment assessing costs because relator "was entitled to bring his complaint by direct appeal"
Summary of this case from Barnett v. StateOpinion
NO. 01-12-00532-CR
09-27-2012
IN RE JOSEPH JAY MEEKS, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
We withdraw our September 14, 2012 opinion issued in this case, and we substitute this opinion in its place.
Relator, Joseph Jay Meeks, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, challenging the portion of the trial court's judgment of March 29, 2012 assessing certain costs and fees against him.
The underlying case is State of Texas v. Joseph Jay Meeks, No. 12CR0859, in the 122nd District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the Honorable John Ellisor presiding.
Meeks was entitled to bring his complaint by direct appeal. See Bates v. State, No. 07-11-00178-CR, 2012 WL 2072836 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jun. 8, 2012, no pet.) (modifying trial court's judgment to delete order for indigent defendant to pay attorney's fees). Meeks did not challenge this portion of the trial court's judgment by direct appeal, and he filed this mandamus action well beyond any date for timely filing a notice of appeal. Because Meeks had an adequate remedy by appeal to challenge the portion of the judgment assessing part of the court costs and fees against him, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).