$2,848.69 U.S. Currency, 77 Gambling Devices, Assorted Gambling Equipment, Paraphernalia and Proceeds v. State ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-13-00524-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI—EDINBURG
$2,848.69 U.S. CURRENCY,
77 GAMBLING DEVICES, ASSORTED
GAMBLING EQUIPMENT
PARAPHERNALIA, AND PROCEEDS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 445th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez, and Justices Benavides and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes
This is a civil-forfeiture case. Appellant Patricio Marco Ahumada Jr. appeals the
trial court’s judgment in favor of the State. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 18.18(b)
(West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). By three issues, appellant argues: (1) the State did
not provide notice that appellant would not be prosecuted, as mandated by article
18.18(b); (2) the trial court improperly struck all of appellant’s testimony because he
invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself; and (3) the trial court’s
actions prevented appellant from properly defending himself. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to a search warrant, the Brownsville Police Department seized
computers and networking equipment, cash, and other miscellaneous property located in
an establishment named the “Gold Mine 777.” The State filed an original petition for
forfeiture, alleging the property constituted gambling devices, and assorted gambling
equipment, paraphernalia, and proceeds. The State’s petition further alleged that
appellant was a party with an interest in the seized property.
Appellant filed an answer generally denying the State’s allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses and special exceptions. After a bench trial, the trial court granted
forfeiture. This appeal followed.
The clerk’s record was filed in this case, but the reporter’s record was not filed.
The reporter’s record was due on November 8, 2013; however, the court reporter has
informed this Court that appellant failed to request the reporter’s record and make
arrangements for payment of the reporter’s record. The Clerk of this Court informed
appellant’s counsel that appellant had ten days to request and arrange payment for the
reporter’s record. That deadline passed and no reporter’s record was filed. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 37.3(c).
II. ABSENCE OF REPORTERS RECORD
Appellate courts must base their decisions on the record as made and brought
forward, not on a record that should have been made or that could have been made. Mar.
2
Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 411 (Tex. 1998). Moreover, “[a]n appellant has
the burden to bring forth sufficient record and authority to support reversible error.”
Rosenblatt v. City of Houston, 31 S.W.3d 399, 407 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, pet.
denied). A point of error not supported by authority is waived. Id. (citing Trenholm v.
Ratcliff, 646 S.W.2d 927, 934 (Tex.1983)).
Examination of appellant’s issues on appeal require a transcript of the court's
hearing. It was appellant’s burden to properly initiate the completion of a record sufficient
to demonstrate reversible error. Aguero v. Aguero, 225 S.W.3d 236, 237 (Tex. App.—El
Paso 2006, no pet.); see Willie v. Donovan & Watkins, Inc., No. 01–03–00890–CV, 2005
WL 375328, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 17, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.).
This Court has determined that no transcript of the reporter's record was requested by
appellant. Because appellant has failed to request a transcript of the hearing and has
raised points of error on appeal involving matters omitted from the record before us, his
actions have prevented us from adequately addressing his dispute. Aguero, 225 S.W.3d
at 237. “By so inhibiting an appellate court, the appellant waives his complaint.” Id.; see
also Southland Lloyd's Ins. Co. v. Tomberlain, 919 S.W.2d 822, 832 n. 6 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 1996, writ denied). Accordingly, appellant’s first, second, and third issues are
overruled.
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
GREGORY T. PERKES
Justice
Delivered and filed the
25th day of June, 2015.
3