KELLER, P.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Are civil filing fees part of the court costs that a bonding company[1] must pay if a bond is forfeited? The answer to that question is complicated. It is “yes,” except when a statute exempts the State from liability for a particular filing fee, unless another provision requires a civil defendant to pay the fee if the State prevails. After our opinion on original submission, Appellant (the surety in this case) filed a motion for rehearing. We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute this opinion in its place.[2] Although one of Appellant’s arguments affects a portion of our reasoning, our holding remains unchanged. I. BACKGROUND A. Bond Forfeiture and Costs Darrell David was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. David failed to appear at a trial setting, and a judgment nisi was entered for the forfeiture of a $10,000 bond. On October 9, 2020, a final judgment of forfeiture was signed, forfeiting the bond and requiring the payment of $100 interest, $396 in court costs, and any reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the county for the return of the criminal defendant. The clerk’s bill of costs, issued the same day, itemized the following: JUDICIAL SALARY FEE 42.00 CLERK’S FEE 50.00 COURT REP SERV FEE 15.00 LAW LIBRARY 20.00 BAILIFF’S FEE 20.00 APPELLATE FUND 5.00 STATE JUDICIAL FEE 50.00 DISPUTE MEDIATION 15.00 RECORDS PRESERVATION 10.00 DC ARCHIVE FEE 10.00 COURT HOUSE SEC FEE 5.00 RECORDS MGT & PRES 5.00 STATE INDIGENCY FEE 10.00 RECORDS MANAGEMENT 5.00 CIVIL COURTS BLDG IM 15.00 ST ELECTRONIC FILING 30.00 INTEREST ON BONF 100.00 CLERK’S FEE – MISC 8.00 CERTIFIED MAIL 76.00 COURT PERS. TRAINING 5.00 This list of items totaled $496. On October 26, 2020, the surety(Continental Heritage) filed a motion to correct costs. The motion contended that the collection of civil filing fees was not authorized in bond forfeiture proceedings. It identified specific fees it claimed it should not have to pay, which were most of the fees in the bill of costs. The motion contended that authority to dispute costs was conferred by Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.008.[3] The parties litigated the issue before the trial court. The State took the position that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revise costs under Article 103.008 and also argued that the costs were legitimate. The surety took the position that the trial court had jurisdiction to address the costs and that it should have to pay only some of the court costs, which the surety believed totaled $94. The trial court ruled that it had jurisdiction to address the issue of court costs, but it denied the surety’s motion to revise the costs. On November 10, 2020, the surety filed a notice of appeal. B. Appeal The court of appeals concluded that civil filing fees were court costs that could be assessed in a bond forfeiture proceeding.[4] In arriving at this conclusion, the court relied on our decisions in Dees v. State[5] and Safety Nat’l Cas. Corp. v. State[6] and on its own earlier decision in Ranger v. State.[7] II. ANALYSIS A. Construction of Statutes and Rules A court must construe a statute in accordance with the plain meaning of its text unless the text is ambiguous or the plain meaning leads to absurd results that the legislature could not possibly have intended.[8] In determining plain meaning, we may resort to standard dictionaries, and we apply the canons of construction.[9] If called upon to look beyond the plain meaning of the text, we look initially to statutory history, which narrowly involves looking at prior versions of the statute.[10] If we need to look further in an extra textual analysis, a variety of other factors can be considered, including the object sought to be attained by the statute, the legislative history, and the consequences of a particular construction.[11] When construing a court rule, we can consider extra textual factors even if the text of the rule is not ambiguous or does not lead to absurd results, but we nevertheless attempt to effectuate the plain language of a rule unless there are important countervailing considerations.[12] B. Jurisdiction The State continues to maintain that a surety cannot use Article 103.008 to challenge court costs. We need not address the applicability of Article 103.008 because the record otherwise shows jurisdiction and authority to address the surety’s court-costs challenge. Except as otherwise provided by Chapter 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bond-forfeiture proceedings “shall be governed by the same rules governing other civil suits.”[13] And appeals in bond forfeiture proceedings are likewise “regulated by the same rules that govern civil actions where an appeal is taken.”[14] In civil cases, a trial court retains plenary power to modify a judgment within 30 days after it is signed.[15] The surety filed its motion to correct costs within the trial court’s period of plenary power, so the trial court was empowered to address it. Moreover, if a motion to modify the judgment is timely filed, the losing party in a civil case has 90 days from the date the judgment is signed to file a notice of appeal.[16] The notice of appeal was filed well within the 90 day period. Both the trial court and the court of appeals had jurisdiction to address the surety’s court-costs complaint. C. Merits 1. Filing-Fee Liability in Civil Cases CONTINENTAL HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY — 6 Many of the court costs in a civil case are fees due upon filing.[17] Because the civil plaintiff files the lawsuit, he pays the filing fee at the time the lawsuit is filed unless an exemption applies.[18] 1
