in Re Eara John Nelson

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 31, 1999
Docket10-99-00023-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Eara John Nelson (in Re Eara John Nelson) 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
in Re Eara John Nelson, (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

In re Eara John Nelson


IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-99-023-CR


IN RE EARA JOHN NELSON



ORIGINAL PROCEEDING


OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING


      Eara Nelson was convicted of indecency with a child and placed on probation. When his probation was revoked, he gave written notice of appeal and asked the trial court to provide a free reporter’s record for the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 20. The court denied his request and he brought a mandamus proceeding seeking to challenge the court’s order denying him a free record. Id. His request for mandamus relief was denied because an appellant may not challenge a court’s denial of indigency status by petition for writ of mandamus. See Abdnor v. Ovard, 653 S.W.2d 793, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Hendren v. Paxson, 951 S.W.2d 496, 497 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no pet.). We noted that it may be challenged by direct appeal.

      On March 16, Nelson filed what we interpret to be a motion for rehearing. He complains that this issue cannot be raised on direct appeal because he cannot properly brief the issue without a record.

      There are a number of cases where the appellant brought this very complaint on direct appeal. See, e.g., Rosales v. State, 748 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Harper v. State, 850 S.W.2d 736 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1993, pet. ref’d); Skidmore v. State, 808 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1991, no pet.). Thus, this complaint should be brought on direct appeal. If successful, the cause will be remanded and the appellant will have an opportunity to obtain the record and file a new brief with substantive complaints.

      The motion for rehearing is denied.

                                                                       PER CURIUM                              


Before Chief Justice Davis,

          Justice Vance, and

          Justice Gray

Motion denied

Opinion delivered and filed March 31, 1999

Do not publish

=MsoNormal>[CR25]


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

Related

Rosales v. State
748 S.W.2d 451 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Abdnor v. Ovard
653 S.W.2d 793 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Skidmore v. State
808 S.W.2d 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Harper v. State
850 S.W.2d 736 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Hendren v. Paxson
951 S.W.2d 496 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Eara John Nelson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eara-john-nelson-texapp-1999.