Robert Howard Green v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

Affirm and Opinion Filed January 27, 2022
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Nos. 05-18-01068-CR,
05-18-01069-CR
ROBERT HOWARD GREEN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F-1676425-T, F-1676426-T
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
On August 31, 2018, a jury found appellant, Robert Howard Green, guilty
(i) of sexual assault of a child by penetration of the female sexual organ and (ii) of
indecency with a child by causing the complainant to contact the genitals of
appellant. The jury assessed his punishment at confinement for fifteen years and ten
years, respectively. Appellant raises a single issue that he is entitled to a new trial
because the record cannot be certified in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 34.6. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Because the sole appellate issue pertains to limited evidentiary and procedural
complaints, we confine our discussion of the facts and the evidence accordingly. A
Dallas County grand jury indicted appellant for the offenses of (i) sexual assault of
a child and (ii) indecency with a child by contact. Appellant pled not guilty to both
charges and elected to have a trial by jury.
Appellant’s three-day jury trial began on August 29, 2018. Several witnesses
testified during the jury trial including (i) complainant, who testified as to the alleged
sexual abuse; (ii) complainant’s guardian, with whom complainant made an outcry
of sexual abuse; (iii) Kimberly Skidmore, who conducted a forensic interview of
complainant; (iv) complainant’s mother; (v) Dr. Kristen Reeder, who conducted
complainant’s REACH examination; (vi) Detective Blayne Burgess, who testified
as to appellant’s arrest and a one-party consent recording between appellant and
complainant; (vii) Leslie Boutte, who testified as to psychological manipulation; and
(viii) appellant, who denied complainant’s claims. Pertinent to this appeal,
Dr. Reeder testified to and prepared a “REACH Program Sexual Abuse Evaluation
Form,” which was admitted into evidence. Detective Burgess testified to a one-party
consent recording that she made of an interview she conducted with appellant—the
recording of which was also admitted into evidence and played for the jury.
After the verdict and sentencing, appellant timely filed his notices of appeal
for each conviction on September 4, 2018. By several orders, our Court ordered the
–2–
trial court’s court reporter to file a complete reporter’s record in the appeals. On July
22, 2019, our Court ordered the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether
appellant has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel,
indigence, because a portion of the record had been lost or destroyed, or for any
other reason. On October 17, 2019, the trial court conducted the hearing on the
reporter’s record and found, in part:
3) This Court has determined that a portion of the reporter’s record has
been lost. The lost record concerns the testimony of two State’s
witnesses on the morning of August 30, 2018; specifically, the entire
testimony of Dr. Kristen Reeder with the REACH Clinic at Children’s
Medical Center and a portion of the testimony of Detective Blayne
Burgess with the Dallas Police Department. The parties cannot agree
on reconstruction or replacement of the lost portion of the record.
Further, this Court cannot determine what constitutes an accurate copy
of the record.
4) This Court has determined that Appellant timely requested a
reporter’s record and that Appellant is not at fault for the lost portion of
the record.
5) The Court finds that the original trial judge who heard the trial of
these cases, Quay Parker, is deceased.
6) This Court, having not heard all the evidence in the case, and having
no personal knowledge of what occurred at trial, has determined that it
cannot resolve the issue of whether or not the lost portion of the record
does (or does not) constitute a significant portion of the reporter’s
record.
7) Based upon the above findings , this Court cannot with any reliable
certainty and/or in accordance with due process afforded to Appellant
by the United States Constitution and/or The Texas Constitution,
determine that the lost portion of the reporter’s record is or is not
necessary to the resolution of the appeal.
–3–
Appellant and the State filed their briefs, thereafter.
II. ISSUE PRESENTED
Appellant raises a single issue to our Court, which we reproduce verbatim:
Because the record cannot be certified either as a verbatim
transcriptions [sic] of the notes taken at trial or as a transcription of
tapes in accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(a)(2), and because the
uncertified portion of the record is necessary to the resolution of his
complaint, Appellant asserts he is entitled to a new trial under TEX. R.
APP. P. 34.6(f).
III. TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 34.6
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f) provides:
(f) Reporter’s Record Lost or Destroyed. An appellant is entitled to a
new trial under the following circumstances:
(1) if the appellant has timely requested a reporter’s record;
(2) if, without the appellant’s fault, a significant exhibit or a
significant portion of the court reporter’s notes and records has
been lost or destroyed or—if the proceedings were electronically
recorded—a significant portion of the recording has been lost or
destroyed or is inaudible;
(3) if the lost, destroyed, or inaudible portion of the reporter’s
record, or the lost or destroyed exhibit, is necessary to the
appeal’s resolution; and
(4) if the lost, destroyed or inaudible portion of the reporter’s
record cannot be replaced by agreement of the parties, or the lost
or destroyed exhibit cannot be replaced either by agreement of
the parties or with a copy determined by the trial court to
accurately duplicate with reasonable certainty the original
exhibit.
TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f). In Nava v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
discussed the third requirement of rule 34.6(f), which is at issue in the instant case:
The third requirement—that the missing record be necessary to the
appeal—was meant to mitigate against the harshness of a rule that
–4–
might require a new trial even when no error actually occurred in the
proceedings. “The provision in the rule that the appellant show that the
missing portion of the record is necessary to her appeal is itself a harm
analysis.” When an appellant has not been harmed by the missing
portion of the record, he should not be granted relief.
415 S.W.3d 289, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see In Interest of S.V., 599 S.W.3d
25, 32 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, pet. denied) (“The requirement that the missing
portion of the record “is necessary to the appeal’s resolution” is a harm analysis.”)
(citing Issac v. State, 989 S.W.2d 754, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)).1
We review a trial court’s findings related to a lost or destroyed record for an
abuse of discretion. In Interest of S.V., 599 S.W.3d at 32. However, we review a trial
court’s determination as to whether the missing portion of the record is necessary to
the appeal’s resolution de novo. Id. at 33 n. 3.2
1
“Any complaint appellant is unable to determine ‘what was said during the punishment trial, including
any comments or findings by the trial court’ is nothing more than pure speculation that the missing record
could potentially assist him in his appeal.” Foster v. State, 525 S.W.3d 898, 907 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017,
pet. ref’d). “We do not require a defendant to prove actual error, only to identify some particular error that
the missing record could potentially assist with in his appeal.” Id.2
We discuss the standard of review in footnote three of In Interest of S.V.:
Under Nava, it is the role of the trial court to determine, based on what occurred at trial, if
the missing portion of the record is essential to the resolution of the appeal. We review that
finding, along with any other findings under appellate rule 34.6(f), in reaching a conclusion
regarding whether the appellant has met his burden of showing he is entitled to a new
trial. See Lucas, 2003 WL 21771333, at *4 (reviewing de novo trial court’s application of
law to facts and any mixed question of law and fact that did not turn on evaluation of
credibility and demeanor); Beal, 2016 WL 1267805, at *6 (reviewing de novo trial court’s
conclusion of law that the appellant was entitled to a new trial); Roman v. State, No. 08-
13-00019-CR, 2014 WL 886877, at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso Mar. 5, 2014, no pet.) (not
designated for publication) (appellate court reviews de novo whether inaudible portions of
transcript warrant new trial under appellate rule 34.6(f)).
In Interest of S.V., 599 S.W.3d at 33.
–5–
IV. ANALYSIS
“‘If the missing portion of the record is not necessary to the appeal’s
resolution, then the loss of that portion of the record is harmless under the rule and
a new trial is not required.’” In Interest of S.V., 599 S.W.3d at 32 (quoting Issac, 989
S.W.2d at 757). Although appellant identifies the missing testimony of Dr. Reeder
and Detective Burgess as “significant,” appellant does not direct us to any particular
issue or error within the missing record, which is necessary to the appeal’s
resolution.3
In his harm analysis, Appellant refers us to two cases from our sister courts:
Bryant v. State, 464 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.),
and Osuch v. State, 976 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
In Bryant, the appellant complained on appeal that “the evidence is insufficient to
support a finding of guilt.” 464 S.W.3d at 103. However, the trial court’s official
court reporter’s record was absent from the record on appeal. Id. Our sister court
explained:
We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that appellant is entitled to a
new trial. Judge Ross determined that Ms. Humphrey’s notes and audio
recording were incomplete and incapable of being transcribed by
another court reporter. The record supports Judge Ross’s finding that
the reporter’s record in this case is irretrievably lost.
....
3
Appellant does not raise any issue or point of error pertaining to the trial court’s admission of (i) Dr.
Reeder’s testimony, (ii) the REACH Program Sexual Abuse Evaluation Form, (iii) Detective Burgess’s
testimony, or (iv) the tape of the one-party consent call.
–6–
Without a complete reporter’s record of the evidence before the jury,
appellant cannot demonstrate the evidence is insufficient. Martin v.
State, 13 S.W.3d 133, 140 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.). We
therefore conclude that appellant has been harmed by the absence of a
reporter’s record.
Bryant, 464 S.W.3d at 102–03. Considering the appellant’s issue on appeal and
complete absence of a reporter’s record, our sister court concluded appellant was
harmed and remanded the cause for a new trial. Id. at 103. But, unlike Bryant,
appellant here (i) raises no sufficiency issue on appeal and (ii) has not suffered from
a loss of the reporter’s record from the entire trial.
In Osuch, the appellant complained on appeal that “the trial court erred in
overruling his objection to the audio portion of the scene videotape because it did
not include the warnings required by article 38.22, § 3(a)(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.” 976 S.W.2d at 811. The audio portion of the videotape had been played
to the jury during trial. Id. After trial, the videotape had been destroyed in error. Id.
In response, the State argued “the statutory warnings were not required because there
was no custodial interrogation on that part of the tape.” Id. Our sister court explained:
there is a dispute between the parties concerning the content of the tape,
and a review of the tape itself would be crucial to our resolution of the
point of error.
....
[N]either the State nor appellant purport to accurately transcribe the
entirety of the scene videotape in its brief, and the critical portions they
do quote are conflicting. There simply is no “complete record” upon
which the parties agree, as the trial court found.
–7–
Osuch, 976 S.W.2d at 812. Considering appellant’s evidentiary issue on appeal, the
dispute over the content of the evidence at issue, and the destruction of the pertinent
evidence, our sister court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case.
Id. But, unlike Osuch, appellant (i) raises no evidentiary issue on appeal and (ii) has
not identified any lost evidence or objection that relates to any issue on appeal.
Here, appellant’s briefing speculates that the missing portions of the record
could potentially assist him in his appeal. See Foster v. State, 525 S.W.3d 898, 907
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, pet. ref’d). Appellant fails to show that the missing
portions of the reporter’s record are necessary to the appeal’s resolution. Indeed,
appellant raised no other issue to our Court, which would necessitate the missing
portion of the reporter’s record. We cannot conclude that appellant has been harmed
by the absence of the missing portions of the reporter’s record. We overrule
appellant’s sole issue.
V. CONCLUSION
Having overruled appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
181068f.u05
181069f.u05 /Bill Pedersen, III//
Do Not Publish BILL PEDERSEN, III
TEX. R. APP. P. 47 JUSTICE
–8–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ROBERT HOWARD GREEN, On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1676425-T.
No. 05-18-01068-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Pedersen, III. Justices Osborne and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Nowell participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 27th day of January, 2022.
–9–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ROBERT HOWARD GREEN, On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1676426-T.
No. 05-18-01069-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Pedersen, III. Justices Osborne and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Nowell participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 27th day of January, 2022.
–10–