William Joe Rhomer v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 19, 2016
Docket04-15-00817-CR
StatusPublished

This text of William Joe Rhomer v. State (William Joe Rhomer 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.

Bluebook
William Joe Rhomer v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas April 19, 2016

No. 04-15-00817-CR

William Joe RHOMER, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR9066 Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER The reporter’s records in this case were due April 6, 2016. It is our understanding there are three reporters in this case: Erminia Uviedo, Debra Doolittle, and Debra Jimenez. On March 16, 2016, Erminia Uviedo filed a notification of late record in which she stated she had not prepared the record because she was unsure whether appellant is entitled to a record without payment of costs. She asked this court for an additional thirty days in which to file the record.

On March 18, 2016, the clerk’s record was filed in this court. The clerk’s record establishes the trial court appointed appellate counsel for appellant on December 22, 2015. Accordingly, we found appellant to be indigent for purposes of appeal; the trial court would not have appointed appellate counsel for appellant unless he was indigent. We noted that Ms. Uviedo’s confusion stemmed from the fact that on January 7, 2016, attorney Dayna L. Jones filed an appearance of counsel. Thus, appellant now has retained counsel for purposes of appeal, leading Ms. Uviedo to believe appellant was no longer indigent and not entitled to a record without payment of costs. We determined, however, Ms. Jones was hired by appellant’s family, not appellant. Accordingly, given the trial court’s prior appointment of appellate counsel and Ms. Jones’s statement that she was hired by appellant’s family, not appellant, we held appellant remains indigent for purposes of appeal. We therefore granted Ms. Uviedo’s notification of late record, but ordered her to file the reporter’s record in this court on or before May 6, 2016, without requiring payment of costs from appellant. That portion of the reporter’s record has not been filed and is due, per our prior order on May 6, 2016. A second reporter, Debra Doolittle, filed her portion of the record on April 13, 2016. Now, the third court reporter, Debra Jimenez, has filed a notification of late record in which she states she has not filed her portion of the record because appellant is not entitled to a record without prepayment of costs — just as Ms. Uviedo did. As we stated in our prior order, appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal. Accordingly, as before, we GRANT the notification of late record, but ORDER court reporter Debra Jimenez to file the reporter’s record in this court on or before May 15, 2016, without requiring payment of costs from appellant.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel and court reporters Erminia Uviedo and Debra Jimenez.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 19th day of April, 2016.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
William Joe Rhomer v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-joe-rhomer-v-state-texapp-2016.