Christopher Lockhart v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 26, 2008
• Docket: 10-08-00076-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-08-00076-CR

Christopher Lockhart,

                                                                                    Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                                    Appellee

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. 31198

ABATEMENT ORDER

            A portion of the reporter’s record is overdue, and despite several notices to the court reporter to file the record, it has not been filed.[1]  The court reporter has moved to Kansas.  Therefore, to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties’ rights, we abate this cause to the trial court for a hearing to determine: (1) why the remainder of the reporter’s record has not been filed; and (2) what steps must be taken to ensure that it is filed within a reasonable period of time after the hearing.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(a)(2).

The trial court shall conduct the hearing within 30 days after the date of this order.  The trial court clerk and the court reporter shall file supplemental records within 45 days after the date of this order.  See Fewins v. State, 170 S.W.3d 293, 296-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, order) (per curiam).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Order issued and filed November 26, 2008

Do not publish

[CR25]

---

[1]               A reporter’s record of a pretrial hearing on Lockhart’s motion to suppress has been filed.  However, a different court reporter made a record of Lockhart’s trial.

for writ of mandamus.

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            (Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment denying the petition for writ of mandamus.  A separate opinion will not issue.  He notes, however, that the majority issued an order dated March 31, 2008 in which a response was requested.  The order includes the statement “Chief Justice Gray not participating.”  This statement is erroneous.  Rather than order a response I voted as follows:  “Saddle Brook West Apartments seeks relief of an order granting a stay for eight months under the Service Members Civil Relief Act.  The stay was granted four months ago.  There are four months remaining in the stay as ordered.  I would deny the petition for mandamus because of Saddle Brook’s delay in seeking relief.  Even if the Act does not apply, I cannot say the trial court abused his discretion in granting the requested delay.”)

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed May 21, 2008

[OT06]