Freddie Foreman v. State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Freddie Foreman v. State of Texas

DecidedFebruary 20, 2002

Docket12-00-00364-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Freddie Foreman v. State of Texas (Freddie Foreman v. State of Texas) 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

Freddie Foreman v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 12-00-00364-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

FREDDIE FOREMAN,

§ APPEAL FROM THE 349TH

APPELLANT

V.

§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§ HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 9, 2000. The notice of appeal was filed on December 7, 2000. This court notified all parties and the court reporter on April 5, 2001 that the reporter's record was not timely filed due to nonpayment of the required preparation fee. We advised all parties that the case would be submitted on the clerk's record alone unless full payment was made to the court reporters by April 30, 2001. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A). To date, the fee for the preparation of the reporter's record has not been paid. On May 9, 2001, this court submitted the case on the clerk's record alone.

Appellant now asserts his indigence as the reason for not paying for the reporter's record. Indigent defendants are provided a free record for appellate purposes. Tex. R. App. P. 20.2 & 37.3(c)(B). However, it is Appellant's responsibility to properly initiate the process. Tex. R. App. P. 20.2 & 37.3(c)(B). The record in this case indicates that Appellant did not timely file his motion and affidavit of indigence with the trial court. Dun v. State, 733 S.W.2d 212, 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). By failing to timely request that a record be provided him free of charge or by failing to request and pay for a transcription of the trial to illustrate the purported errors raised by the issues

in his brief, Appellant has waived any error and presented nothing for us to review. Kent v. State, 982 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd). Therefore, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Opinion delivered February 20, 2002.

Panel consisted of Davis, C.J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

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

NO. 12-00-00364-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

FREDDIE FOREMAN,

§ APPEAL FROM THE 349TH

APPELLANT

V.

§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§ HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 9, 2000. The notice of appeal was filed on December 7, 2000. This court notified all parties and the court reporter on April 5, 2001 that the reporter's record was not timely filed due to nonpayment of the required preparation fee. We advised all parties that the case would be submitted on the clerk's record alone unless full payment was made to the court reporters by April 30, 2001. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A). To date, the fee for the preparation of the reporter's record has not been paid. On May 9, 2001, this court submitted the case on the clerk's record alone.

Appellant now asserts his indigence as the reason for not paying for the reporter's record. Indigent defendants are provided a free record for appellate purposes. Tex. R. App. P. 20.2 & 37.3(c)(B). However, it is Appellant's responsibility to properly initiate the process. Tex. R. App. P. 20.2 & 37.3(c)(B). The record in this case indicates that Appellant did not timely file his motion and affidavit of indigence with the trial court. Dun v. State, 733 S.W.2d 212, 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). By failing to timely request that a record be provided him free of charge or by failing to request and pay for a transcription of the trial to illustrate the purported errors raised by the issues

in his brief, Appellant has waived any error and presented nothing for us to review. Kent v. State, 982 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd). Therefore, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Opinion delivered February 20, 2002.

Panel consisted of Davis, C.J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Freddie Foreman v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freddie-foreman-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack