Suniga, Brian

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 29, 2015·No. AP-77,041·Published

Opinion

AP-77,041 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 4/29/2015 8:55:57 AM Accepted 4/29/2015 9:04:28 AM IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN ABEL ACOSTA CLERK

BRIAN SUNIGA, § April 29, 2015 Appellant § § v. § § No. AP-77,041 THE STATE OF TEXAS, § Appellee § § _____________________________ §

MOTION TO ABATE APPEAL FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO ENTER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FOR COMPLETION OF APPELLATE RECORD

Comes now, Brian Suniga, Appellant, by and through counsel and files this

Motion to Abate Appeal for the Trial Court to Enter Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law and for Completion of Appellate Record, pursuant to TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 33.07, TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5 (c)(1) and 34.6(d), and Cullen

v. State, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), in support whereof

Appellant states the following:

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in the

140th Judicial District Court, Lubbock County, Texas, the Honorable Jim B.

Darnell presiding, Case # 2012-434,109. Appellant filed a designation of the

record on June 27, 2014, of which a copy is attached as Exhibit A. Appellant’s

1 brief is currently due to be filed in this Court on May 1, 2015, the Clerk’s Record

having been filed on September 19, 2014, and the Reporter’s Record having been

filed on April 1, 2015. Upon a preliminary review of the record, it has come to

counsel’s notice that there are omissions from both the Clerk’s Record and the

Reporter’s Record which must be remedied before the Appellant’s Opening Brief

can be prepared:

a) Counsel for Mr. Suniga at trial argued a Motion to Suppress based on the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 28 RR 12-19. No copy of that Motion as filed is present in the record, although it is mentioned during the hearing on the Motion to Suppress. 28 RR 12.1

b) After the denial of the Motion to Suppress, the trial court was asked by counsel for Mr. Suniga to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 32 RR 9. The court indicated that it would do so, and stated that the Findings and Conclusions would be filed after the conclusion of the case. 32 RR 12. No Findings and Conclusions are included in the Clerk’s Record despite trial counsel’s request.

c) It is clear from the record that at least one note was sent out by the jury during deliberations. 35 RR 44 (reference by court reporter to “First Jury Note.”). However, no jury notes are contained in the Clerk’s Record.

d) Defense counsel at trial filed two motions for a change of venue, which appear at 3 CR 1849-58 and 3 CR 1958-85. There were two CD-ROM exhibits to the first motion, Exhibits C & D, and one to the second motion, Exhibit F. None of those CD-ROM exhibits have been provided as part of the appellate record.

1 The Clerk of Court was unable to locate a copy of that Motion, but one has now been produced by the Office of the District Attorney, and the trial court has already instructed that it be used to supplement the record. 2 e) Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5, the Clerk must include in the appellate record a copy of the trial court’s docket sheet. However, the docket sheet contained in the Clerk’s Record gives little more than the style of the case, but has no actual entries concerning filings, hearings or other activity in the case. 1 CR 8. Upon inquiry by Appellant’s counsel as to whether there was in fact a complete docket sheet, counsel was provided only with a computerized “Case Summary” which is incomplete - for example, a pretrial hearing of November 15, 2013, for which there is a transcript volume (Volume 2 of the Reporter’s Record) is not entered on that summary. In fact, no entries at all appear from August 22, 2013 to March 11, 2014, despite the fact that jury selection in this capital case began at the end of March 2014. On examining the “Case Summary,” which is attached as Exhibit B, it is clear that some hearings have not been transcribed, even though the Designation of Record sought “all hearings before the Court.” For example, there are entries in the Case Summary indicating that hearings were held on September 28, 2012; November 30, 2012; August 2, 2013; August 6, 2013; September 23, 2013 and December 5, 2013, well as possible hearings on April 26, 2012 and August 9, 2012.2 There may be other hearings that have not been transcribed but, because of the lack of a complete docket sheet, it is currently impossible to tell.3

f) No record has been provided of some specific proceedings. For example, there is no transcript of the initial jury call and taking of juror excuses. According to trial counsel, with whom undersigned counsel has conferred, there was also a hearing concerning an attempt by Appellant to discharge trial counsel, with whom Appellant was dissatisfied. That hearing may have been conducted in chambers. No record has been provided of either of

2 These two dates are listed as “Plea Negotation Conf” (sic) and it is unclear whether they were in fact hearings or court-mandated discussions between the parties. 3 Undersigned counsel has inquired of the court reporter whether there are remaining untranscribed hearings. The court reporter has inspected a daily log that he keeps, and states that he has not found any untranscribed hearings. However, the court reporter states he does not keep a list of all hearings in a specific case, and it therefore appears possible that bringing a complete list of specific hearing dates to his notice will ensure that all hearings have in fact been transcribed. Undersigned counsel has also requested the time sheets of counsel for Mr. Suniga at trial in order to ensure that all hearing dates in this case can be identified.

3 those hearings.

g) Furthermore, inspection of the recently-provided “Case Summary” shows entries revealing that there were letters - of which no description is given - filed in the case but not contained in the Clerk’s Record, as well as many sealed documents, motions and orders, which are not reflected in the existing Clerk’s Record in any way.

With regard to sealed matters, there are two areas where undersigned

counsel requires access to the material in question:

First, defense counsel at trial filed numerous motions and documents under

seal and obtained orders, which were also filed under seal. Those filings have

only recently come to undersigned counsel’s notice, since their very existence is

not apparent at all from the existing incomplete Clerk’s Record. Undersigned

counsel requests the provision of copies of those filings, with the originals to

continue to be kept under seal. Without these copies, it cannot be ascertained

whether any matter pertaining to them should be raised on appeal, in which case

an appropriate motion for unsealing can be filed. In the event that any of the

filings in question were made by the State, undersigned counsel requests that she

be so notified by the clerk, so that she can, if necessary, move for the unsealing of

the items in question or for them to be provided to counsel on a confidential basis.

Second, the juror information cards and questionnaires in this capital case

have not been included in the appellate record as they are protected from public

4 disclosure under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 35.29. Article 35.29 makes no

specific provision for the supply of that information to appellate counsel, although

it does do so with regard to successor counsel in Art. 11.071 proceedings.

Nonetheless, such juror information may be pertinent to, e.g., a comparison of

jurors for the purpose of a Batson v.

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

Suniga, Brian, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Suniga, Brian (Suniga, Brian) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Griffin v. Illinois
351 U.S. 12 (Supreme Court, 1956)
Woodson v. North Carolina
428 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Gilmore v. Taylor
508 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Monge v. California
524 U.S. 721 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Deck v. Missouri
544 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court, 2005)
State v. Cullen
195 S.W.3d 696 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Newman v. State
331 S.W.3d 447 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011)
State v. Elias
339 S.W.3d 667 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011)
Bonilla, Rosali
424 S.W.3d 528 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)
M. L. B. v. S. L. J.
519 U.S. 102 (Supreme Court, 1996)