Desa Wells and All Occupants v. Breton Mill Apartments ( 2002 )

NO. 07-01-0320-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
APRIL 12, 2002
______________________________
DESA WELLS,
Appellant
V.
BRETON MILL APARTMENTS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF HARRIS COUNTY;
NO. 749,853; HON. CYNTHIA CROWE, PRESIDING
_______________________________
ABATE AND REMAND
________________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, J.J.
By motion, appellant, Desa Wells, requests that this Court correct the trial court
record. For the reasons which follow, we abate and remand the cause for additional
proceedings.
The appellant claims that she has “conducted a careful review of the Record of
Testimonies submitted in this case . . . and discovered that the Record is tainted and
bombarded with fused and incorrect testimonies.” In addition to alleging that some
testimony was changed or deleted, she also states that in some instances “objections,
questions and answers . . . [were] fused and misplaced in the Record.” This “inaccurate
manner in which the Record of Testimonies [has] been recorded or reported by the Court
Reporter is misleading and false as to the true testimonies that were given during the trial
. . . .” This “makes it impossible for [her] to prepare an effective Brief which will properly
represent the issues and facts submitted to the Trial of Facts.”
Since the appellant’s objections arose after the reporter’s record was filed in the
appellate court, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(3) is applicable. The rule
states that we “may submit the dispute to the trial court for resolution. The trial court must
then ensure that the reporter’s record is made to conform to what occurred in the trial
court.” We now abate and remand the cause to the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of
Harris County and order the court to immediately notice and conduct a hearing to
determine whether the reporter’s record contains errors in those areas specified by the
appellant, whether the errors, if any, are substantive or consequential, and if substantive
and consequential, correct same and state in findings filed with the clerk of this court on
or before May 13, 2002, that it has reviewed the complained-of portions of the record,
setting them out in detail. Stafford v. State, 63 S.W.3d 502, 511 (Tex. App.–Texarkana
2001, no pet.)(finding the above procedure to be adequate in resolving a dispute regarding
alleged errors in the reporter’s record). Should additional time be needed to perform these
tasks, the county court may request same on or before May 13, 2002.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2