James Dwayne Hoisanger v. State
This text of James Dwayne Hoisanger v. State (James Dwayne Hoisanger 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.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-16-00343-CR
James Dwayne Hoisanger, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 424TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 39,332, HONORABLE DANIEL H. MILLS, JUDGE PRESIDING
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant James Dwayne Hoisanger, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a
notice of appeal from the district court’s order denying Hoisanger’s motion for DNA testing.
Hoisanger has also filed an affidavit of indigence, which was included with his notice of appeal. On
June 29, 2016, this Court notified the district clerk that the clerk’s record was overdue and requested
that the record be filed no later than July 11, 2016. On July 5, 2016, this Court received notice
from the district clerk that Hoisanger had not requested the clerk’s record and that “no payment has
been tendered.” This Court then requested that Hoisanger submit a status report regarding the appeal
or that a hearing before the district court would be ordered. Hoisanger responded by filing with the
court reporter a written request for the reporter’s record. He also filed with this Court a motion to
proceed “in forma pauperis,” i.e., as an indigent. Although the court reporter has now filed the reporter’s record, the district clerk
has not yet filed the clerk’s record. Instead, the district clerk has again informed this Court that
Hoisanger has not requested the clerk’s record. The district clerk has further informed us that the
district court has held no hearing on Hoisanger’s indigence and that “it appears none has been
requested or scheduled.”
When the appellant is indigent, as Hoisanger claims to be here, the failure to make
arrangements for the clerk’s record does not authorize the dismissal of an appeal.1 If Hoisanger
is indigent, he is entitled to a free record on appeal.2 And it is the district court that must determine
whether Hoisanger is indigent.3 Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the
district court for a determination of Hoisanger’s indigence.4 If the district court determines that
Hoisanger is indigent, we further direct the district clerk to prepare and file the clerk’s record. A
supplemental clerk’s record containing the district court’s findings on indigence shall be filed no
later than September 15, 2016.5 The clerk’s record, if Hoisanger is found to be indigent, shall be due
September 30, 2016.
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 20.2. 3 See id. 4 See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(a)(2); see also Ex parte Abdulkadir, No. 07-12-00145-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4785, at *1-3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 14, 2012) (per curiam order) (abating appeal of order denying motion for DNA testing under similar circumstances). 5 Because the court below will determine Hoisanger’s indigence, we dismiss Hoisanger’s motion to proceed “in forma pauperis” as moot.
2 It is ordered on August 31, 2016.
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field
Abated and Remanded
Filed: August 31, 2016
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
James Dwayne Hoisanger v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-dwayne-hoisanger-v-state-texapp-2016.