Miller, Presiding Judge.James Earl Roberts, proceeding pro se, appeals the trial court’s order denying him pauper’s status.[1] Roberts contends that the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing on his affidavit of indigence. We agree, and thus, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings. While a merits review of the trial court’s indigence determination is generally unauthorized, this Court may review the trial court’s procedure in making its decision. Roberson v. State, 300 Ga. 632, 635 (III) (797 SE2d 104) (2017); see also Collier v. Colfin AI GA I, LLC, 332 Ga. App. 486, 487 (773 SE2d 440) (2015) (“Although a trial court’s determination on the validity of a pauper’s affidavit is not normally subject to review, the procedure used by the trial court in making an indigence ruling is appealable.”).Roberts entered a guilty plea to numerous child molestation and aggravated child molestation charges in 2008. Years later, Roberts filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal, accompanied by a sworn pauper’s affidavit. When the trial court did not rule on the motion for out-of-time appeal, Roberts filed a notice of intent to file mandamus, in which he requested that the trial court render a decision on his motion. This notice was accompanied by a sworn affidavit of indigence. The trial court construed this affidavit as a formal motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and denied it on the basis that it was not supported by any evidence.1. Roberts claims that the trial court erred by construing his notice of intent to file a mandamus action as an actual mandamus action. However, the trial court’s order is limited to Roberts’ affidavit of indigence, and does not address Roberts’ notice of intent to file a mandamus action. Thus, this enumeration provides nothing for us to review.2. Roberts also contends that the trial court erred by not holding a hearing on his affidavit before denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We agree. When any party, plaintiff or defendant, in any action or proceeding held in any court in this state is unable to pay any deposit, fee, or other cost which is normally required in the court, if the party shall subscribe an affidavit to the effect that because of his indigence he is unable to pay the costs, the party shall be relieved from paying the costs and his rights shall be the same as if he had paid the costs.
