Frank Herrera v. State ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                     NO. 07-07-0299-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT AMARILLO
    PANEL A
    JANUARY 10, 2008
    ______________________________
    FRANK HERRERA, APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
    _________________________________
    FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF COMAL COUNTY;
    NO. 2005-CR-2133; HONORABLE RANDY GRAY, JUDGE
    _______________________________
    Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant Frank Herrera, appearing pro se here and in the trial court, appeals his
    conviction for theft of services. We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
    Appellant was convicted by a jury for theft of services of $500 or more but less than
    $1,500, on June 1, 2007. The court sentenced him to 180 days in jail probated for twenty
    four months, ten days shock jail time, and a fine. Appellant filed a notice of appeal June
    14 and the trial court certified a right of appeal. On August 29, appellant filed a printed
    document     in   this   court    denominated    "Petition   for   Discretionary   Review."
    Contemporaneously he filed a handwritten motion alleging indigence and requesting
    appointment of appellate counsel. The motion contained no data supporting appellant’s
    claimed indigence. Appellant filed a second "Petition for Discretionary Review" in this court
    on October 15. The clerk's record and reporter's record were not timely filed nor did the
    clerk or reporter request an extension of time for preparation of the record.
    Given these facts, as well as an apparent issue concerning appellate certification,
    we abated the case by opinion of October 19, 2007, with instructions for the trial court to
    conduct a hearing to determine, inter alia, appellant’s indigence and whether he was
    entitled to appointed counsel and a free record.
    On October 29, appellant filed a document with this court entitled “Affidavit of
    Indigence.” It bore a file stamp from the clerk of the trial court of May 31, 2007. In the
    affidavit, appellant swore he had no monthly income, had no checking or savings accounts,
    received no “contributions for household support,” had five minor dependant children, and
    received medicaid and food stamps for the children. Appellant further averred he was not
    able to pay “court costs.” Appellant did not request appointment of counsel nor did he
    declare an inability to employ counsel of his own choosing.1 The affidavit did not address
    appellant’s ownership of assets other than checking or savings accounts or address
    spousal income available to appellant.2
    1
    See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(o) (Vernon Supp. 2007).
    2
    See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(m) (Vernon Supp. 2007).
    2
    The trial court convened a hearing on November 7, 2007, to consider the issues
    listed in our October 19 opinion. Although the record reveals the court administrator gave
    him notice by mail on October 26, appellant did not appear at the hearing.
    The reporter’s record of the trial court’s November 7 hearing, and the trial court’s
    detailed findings of fact made pursuant to our instructions, were filed. They address
    appellant’s indigence claim. The trial court concluded appellant was not indigent and not
    entitled to appointed appellate counsel or a free record.3 Evidence admitted at the
    November 7 hearing supports the court’s conclusions.
    After we received the record from the November 7 hearing, by letter of November
    28 we directed appellant to file written proof of payment or satisfactory arrangements for
    preparation of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record within twenty days. Citing appellate
    rule 37.3(b), we advised appellant that failure to comply as to the clerk’s record would
    render his appeal subject to dismissal for want of prosecution.
    In documents filed in this court on November 29 and December 17, appellant
    appears to argue from appellate rule 20.1 that because no party contested his May 31,
    2007, affidavit he was entitled to appointed counsel and a free record. See Tex. R. App.
    3
    The trial court’s findings note appellant was denied an appointed counsel prior to
    trial, and that the court three times ordered him to employ counsel. The findings also cited
    trial testimony by appellant and his wife asserting information inconsistent with a finding
    of indigency, under either the standard set out in appellate rule 20.2 for eligibility for a free
    appellate record or that set out in article 26.04 of the code of criminal procedure for
    entitlement to appointed counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(o) (Vernon
    Supp. 2007); Tex. R. App. P. 20.2; Whitehead v. State, 
    130 S.W.3d 866
    , 878
    (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (describing and applying both indigency standards).
    
    3 P. 20
    .1(e), (f). Rule 20.1 applies to a party seeking to proceed with appeal of a civil case
    without advance payment of costs because of indigence. It contains no provision for
    appointment of counsel. Rule 20.1 has no application in this criminal case.
    Neither document filed by appellant after our November 28 letter to him challenges
    the trial court’s findings or conclusions, or offers an explanation for his absence from the
    November 7 hearing. In letters filed in this court on December 27, the trial court clerk and
    court reporter informed us that appellant had not contacted them and had not made
    arrangements for payment of the record.
    Appellant has not supplied written proof of payment or satisfactory arrangements
    as required by our November 28 letter. The reports of the clerk and court reporter indicate
    he took no steps even to make payment arrangements for the $172 clerk’s record.
    We find the clerk’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or
    make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record. We find also appellant
    has had a reasonable opportunity to cure his failure. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Accordingly,
    and on our own initiative, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.4
    James T. Campbell
    Justice
    Do not publish.
    4
    See Rodriguez v. State, 
    970 S.W.2d 133
    , 135 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd)
    (applying appellate rule 2 in similar circumstances). See also Sutherland v. State, 
    132 S.W.3d 510
    , 511-12 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-07-00299-CR

Filed Date: 1/10/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/8/2015