Markus Anthony Rodriguez v. the State of Texas
This text of Markus Anthony Rodriguez v. the State of Texas (Markus Anthony Rodriguez v. the 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.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00288-CR
MARKUS ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. B20667-1803, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding
October 16, 2023 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant, Markus Anthony Rodriguez, appeals from the trial court’s judgment
adjudicating him guilty of intoxicated assault with a motor vehicle1 and sentencing him to
eight years’ confinement. The appellate record was originally due September 8, 2023.
The clerk’s record was filed by this deadline, but the reporter’s record was not. By letter
of September 15, 2023, we notified the reporter that the record was overdue and directed
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.07. her to advise this Court of the status of the record by September 25. The court reporter
has notified the Court by telephone that she is unable to complete the record or file a
motion for extension due to medical issues.
Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further
proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (“The trial and appellate courts are jointly
responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.”); 37.3(a)(2) (requiring
appellate courts to “make whatever order is appropriate to avoid further delay and to
preserve the parties’ rights” when the appellate record is not timely filed). On remand,
the trial court shall determine the following:
(1) what tasks remain to complete the filing of the reporter’s record;
(2) why the reporter has not completed the necessary tasks;
(3) what amount of time is reasonably necessary for the completion of those
tasks; and
(4) whether the reporter can complete the tasks within the time the trial court
finds reasonable.
Should the trial court determine that the reporter will require more than thirty days
to complete, certify, and file the reporter’s record, it shall arrange for a substitute reporter
to do so. The trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the
aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a
supplemental clerk’s record and cause that record to be filed with this Court by November
15, 2023.
2 Should the reporter file the record on or before October 30, 2023, she is directed
to immediately notify the trial court of the filing, in writing, whereupon the trial court shall
not be required to take any further action.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Markus Anthony Rodriguez v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markus-anthony-rodriguez-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.