From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston
Feb 24, 2000
No. 01-97-01344-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 24, 2000)

Opinion

No. 01-97-01344-CR

Filed February 24, 2000.

Appeal from the 230th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 751611.

Garland D. McInnis, Jr., for Appellee.

John B. Holmes, for State.

Panel consists of Justices SCHNEIDER, ANDELL and DUGGAN.


OPINION


A jury found appellant Michael Rodriguez guilty of unlawfully carrying a weapon on premises licensed for the sale of alcohol, and the trial court assessed his punishment at 10 years probation. In his sole point of error, appellant asserts the trial court erred in failing to order the preparation of the reporter's record at county expense, when appellant was indigent, in violation of his federal constitutional right to due process. We affirm.

After sentencing, appellant filed a motion for a new trial on September 5, 1997, a written notice of appeal on October 31, 1997, and a request for a free appellate record based upon indigency on May 27, 1998. Pursuant to an interlocutory order issued by this Court, the trial court conducted a hearing on appellant's request for a free record and determined that he was not indigent.

Even if appellant was indigent at the time of his appeal, he waived the right to a free reporter's record by failing to make a timely request. In criminal cases, an indigent appellant must request a free appellate record within the statutory time limit for perfecting his appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 20.2; Gray v. State, 928 S.W.2d 561, 562 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (holding that, under substantially similar language from the predecessor of Rule 20.2, a defendant "must file an indigency affidavit and move the court for a hearing on that assertion in the time set out in the statute and must also . . . demonstrate his indigency at the hearing").

Although we abated appellant's appeal with our interlocutory order to determine why no reporter's record was filed with this Court, this did not obviate appellant's duty to file a timely request. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that a criminal defendant must file notice of his appeal within 30 days after his sentence is imposed or within 90 days after his sentence is imposed if there is a timely motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a).

Here, appellant waived any right to a reporter's record at the county's expense by waiting 293 days after his sentence was imposed to make his request. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.2; Gray, 928 S.W.2d at 562.

Appellant's point of error is overruled.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston
Feb 24, 2000
No. 01-97-01344-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 24, 2000)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston

Date published: Feb 24, 2000

Citations

No. 01-97-01344-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 24, 2000)