Bobby Richard White v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 25, 2004
Docket07-04-00110-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Bobby Richard White v. State (Bobby Richard White v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bobby Richard White v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

NO. 07-04-0110-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MAY 25, 2004 ______________________________

BOBBY RICHARD WHITE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee _________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF CASTRO COUNTY;

NO. A2879-0304; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING _______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant Bobby Richard White appeals from a judgment convicting him of

possession of a controlled substance. The clerk’s record is due in this cause, and an

extension of the applicable deadline was sought. To justify the extension, the district clerk

represented that appellant has failed to 1) file a written designation for the clerk’s record,

2) file a written designation for the reporter’s record and 3) pay or make arrangements to

pay for the record. Nothing of record appears showing the appellant is indigent and entitled

to a free record. Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 64th District

Court of Castro County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court

shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing

to determine the following:

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;

2. whether appellant is indigent;

3. whether appellant is entitled to a free appellate record due to his indigency; and

4. whether appellant has counsel or is entitled to appointed counsel.

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. So too shall it 1) execute findings

of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed

a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and all

orders it may issue as a result of its hearing on this matter, and 3) cause to be developed

a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the

aforementioned hearing. Additionally, the district court shall then file the supplemental

record with the clerk of this court on or before June 25, 2004. Should further time be

needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before June

25, 2004.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bobby Richard White v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobby-richard-white-v-state-texapp-2004.