Miguel Jose Rivera v. State
This text of Miguel Jose Rivera v. State (Miguel Jose Rivera 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
Order entered September 15, 2020
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00300-CR No. 05-20-00301-CR
MIGUEL JOSE RIVERA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F19-11498-V & F16-29747-V
ORDER
Before the Court is appellant’s September 4, 2020 motion to supplement the
record. Appellant requests to supplement the record with material underlying
State’s Exhibit 16—a witness’s curriculum vitae listing several pages of seminars
and workshops which the witness had either attended or at which she had delivered
lectures. Appellant contends that because the State cited the witness’s participation
in the events listed as the basis for her expertise, any seminar or workshop materials became part of the exhibit and appellant is entitled to supplement the
record with this additional material.
The record shows the State admitted into evidence for record purposes a
“ten-page curriculum vitae” as State’s Exhibit 16. The document filed in the
appellate record as State’s Exhibit 16 is a ten-page curriculum vitae. Appellant
does not allege that any seminar or workshop documents were before the trial
court. Nothing in the portion of the record appellant cites shows the trial court
reviewed any seminar or workshop documents or even that such documents exist.
“While the record may be supplemented under the appellate rules if
something has been omitted, the supplementation rules cannot be used to create
new evidence.” Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
Our review of the record is generally limited to the evidence that was before the
trial court. Id. Because it does not appear that there is a dispute about what was
considered at trial, but rather an attempt to supplement the reporter’s record with
documents that were not part of the trial court proceedings, we DENY appellant’s
motion to supplement the record.
After three extensions, appellant’s brief was due on September 4, 2020.
Appellant is ORDERED to file his brief on or before October 9, 2020.
/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
–2–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Miguel Jose Rivera v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miguel-jose-rivera-v-state-texapp-2020.