Bryan Stallworth v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: July 2, 2026
• Docket: 10-23-00257-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-23-00257-CR

Bryan Stallworth, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 12th District Court of Walker County, Texas Judge Albert McCaig, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 30582

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Appellant, Bryan Stallworth, guilty of two counts of the

felony offense of indecency with a child by sexual contact. After finding the

two allegations of prior felony convictions true, the trial court assessed his

punishment at confinement for life and sentenced him accordingly. This

appeal ensued. We will affirm. A. Issue One and Three

In his first and third issues, Stallworth argues that missing and

inaccurate clerk’s records denied him due process and require a new trial.

Stallworth specifically complains that motions for self-representation, speedy

trial, and discovery filed on September 7, 2022 were missing from the record. 1

A court document is filed “when it is placed in the custody or control of

the clerk.” Stansberry v. State, 239 S.W.3d 260, 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

(citing Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. La Coke, 585 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tex.1979)).

Under the presumption of regularity, we must presume, in the absence of

evidence to the contrary, “the regularity of the proceedings and documents in

[a] lower court.” McCloud v. State, 527 S.W.2d 885, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975);

see Light v. State, 15 S.W.3d 104, 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (en banc) (citing

McCloud, 527 S.W.2d at 887); Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1984) (en banc) (citing McCloud, 527 S.W.2d at 887; Nichols v.

State, 511 S.W.2d 945, 947–48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)).

If a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk’s record, the trial

court, the appellate court, or any party may by letter direct the trial court clerk

1 Stallworth also complains that a second motion for speedy trial filed on December 16, 2022 was

missing from the record. In support of his brief, Stallworth attached multiple documents, some of which he claims are missing from the record. It is well-settled that appellate courts cannot consider evidence not in the appellate record on appeal. E.g., Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

Stallworth v. State Page 2 to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate court a supplement containing the

omitted item. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5. If a filing designated for inclusion in the

clerk’s record has been lost or destroyed, the parties may, by written

stipulation, deliver a copy of that item to the trial court clerk for inclusion in

the clerk’s record or a supplement. Id. If the parties cannot agree, the trial

court must—on any party's motion or at the appellate court's request—

determine what constitutes an accurate copy of the missing item and order it

to be included in the clerk’s record or a supplement. Id. While the record may

be supplemented under the appellate rules if something has been omitted, the

supplementation rules cannot be used to create new evidence. Whitehead, 130

S.W.3d at 872.

Here, Stallworth contends that motions for self-representation, speedy

trial, and discovery were filed on September 7, 2022 and are missing from the

record. During the pendency of this appeal, Stallworth complained that these

same motions had been omitted from the clerk’s record. The case was abated

to the trial court to provide a supplemental clerk’s record containing these

documents. A hearing was held and a supplemental clerk’s record was filed

with this court. Based on the record before us, a motion for self-representation,

which appears in both the original clerk’s record and supplemental clerk’s

record, was notarized on September 7, 2022, but not filed until April 13, 2023.

Stallworth v. State Page 3 This motion is accompanied by a letter from Stallworth, dated March 10, 2023,

stating that there are three copies of the motion enclosed and requesting that

a file-stamped copy be returned to Stallworth before his next court date in May

2023. The record before us does not contain any objection to or evidence

contradicting the file date of April 13, 2023. The trial court clerk certified that

no documents filed on September 7, 2022 were located, and the record does not

contain any other evidence to support Stallworth’s claim that any documents

were filed on that day.

Accordingly, we overrule Stallworth’s first and third issues.

B. Issue Two

In his second issue, Stallworth argues that the trial court erred in failing

to hold a hearing or rule on numerous filed motions, specifically: an affidavit

filed on October 26, 2022; a motion to quash indictment filed on March 1, 2023;

a supplement to the motion to quash indictment filed on March 1, 2023; a

motion for discovery filed on May 26, 2023; a motion for pretrial habeas corpus

filed on July 17, 2023; and a motion for demand for discovery filed on July 28,

2023.

To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the complaining party

must first make a timely request, objection, or motion that states the grounds

for the ruling sought. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. The complaining party must

Stallworth v. State Page 4 then obtain an adverse ruling from the trial court on his request, objection, or

motion, or the complaining party must object to the trial court’s refusal to rule.

Id. These rules express the general policy that an appellate court should not

reverse a trial court on a matter that was never brought to the trial court’s

attention. Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 78–79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

Here, the record shows that the motions at issue were filed with the trial

court clerk. However, the record does not show that Stallworth obtained an

adverse ruling or objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule on his motions. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(2). It does not appear that Stallworth ever brought

these motions to the trial court’s attention. See Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 78-

79.

Accordingly, we overrule Stallworth’s second issue.

C. Issue Four

In his fourth issue, Stallworth argues the trial court erred in allowing

the State to impeach using two misdemeanor convictions older than ten years

in violation of Rule 609.

In order to preserve error for appeal, a party must make a timely and

sufficiently explicit request, objection, or motion. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. Because

Stallworth did not object to the evidence at trial, he cannot now complain about

its admission on appeal.

Stallworth v. State Page 5 Accordingly, we overrule Stallworth’s fourth issue.

D. Issue Five

In his fifth issue, Stallworth argues that the trial court made an

improper statement during voir dire, specifically that there is no definition of

reasonable doubt.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that “the Constitution neither

prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do

so as a matter of course.” Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. Crim. App.

2000) (citing Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 1243, 127 L. Ed.

2d 583 (1994)). The Court of Criminal Appeals noted:

Citing Jackson v. Virginia, the Court concluded, indeed, so long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof. It is ill-advised for us to require trial courts to provide the jury with a redundant, confusing, and logically-flawed definition when the Constitution does not require it, no Texas statute mandates it, and over a hundred years of pre-Geesa Texas precedent discourages it.

Id. (internal quotations & footnotes omitted). The Court of Criminal Appeals

also stated that “the better practice is to give no definition of reasonable doubt

at all to the jury.” Id. Therefore, we cannot say the trial court erred in failing

to define reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, we overrule Stallworth’s fifth issue.

Stallworth v. State Page 6 E. Conclusion

Having overruled Stallworth’s five issues, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court.

MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 2, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CRPM

Stallworth v. State Page 7