Before QUINN, REAVIS and JOHNSON, J.J. On February 4, 2002, this Court dismissed appellant Ronald Claxton's appeal for failing to pay the requisite filing fee of $125.00 and entered judgment assessing appellant with costs. Furthermore, we issued mandate on April 25, 2002. On June 19, 2002, the Lubbock County District Clerk, Jean Anne Stratton (the Clerk) filed a motion entitled "Motion to Recall or Modify Mandate and to Waive Costs" with this court. In it, the Clerk contends that she "erroneously forwarded [appellant's] Notice of Appeal to the 7^th Court of Appeals." And, that "[f]orwarding the Notice. . . was therefore a clerical error." Thus, appellant was without fault. Accordingly, the Clerk requests that this court recall its mandate, "and that costs in this case be waived, or, in the alternative, that the Court's Mandate be modified to require that the costs . . . be assessed against the [Clerk]." For the reasons that follow, we deny the motion.

This Court's plenary power over our judgment expired 60 days after judgment, since no timely motion for rehearing was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 19.1(a). So, while we may have the authority to recall our mandate, Tex. R. App. P. 19.3(b), we lack jurisdiction to vacate or modify our judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 19.3. And, without plenary power to vacate or modify our judgment, recalling the mandate would not benefit appellant. See Henderson v. State, 977 S.W.2d 605, 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (denying leave to withdraw mandate) (Price, J., concurring). This is especially so when appellant did not contend that recalling the mandate is needed simply to correct a clerical error in our judgment or opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 19.3(a) (stating that the mandate can be recalled to correct clerical errors in the judgment or opinion after the court lost its plenary jurisdiction).

Therefore, appellant's motion to recall or modify mandate and to waive costs is denied.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.