Rafael Sanchez v. Irene Garcia ( 2014 )

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed June 25, 2014.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01020-CV
RAFAEL SANCHEZ, Appellant
V.
IRENE GARCIA, Appellee
On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-07132-D
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers
Opinion by Justice Bridges
Rafael Sanchez appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Irene Garcia on her claims
that Sanchez and J.C. Brown, Jr., individually or on behalf of Lone Star Engine Installation
Center, Inc. engaged in a conspiracy to unlawfully operate a towing business that resulted in
damage to her. In five issues, Sanchez argues generally the trial court erred in rendering a
judgment against him because the court did not have personal jurisdiction over him in an
individual capacity and the court erred in submitting Jury Issue Number 4. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
The record on appeal contains only a clerk’s record. From the pleadings, it appears that
Garcia filed suit in June 2011 alleging she was injured as a result of a vehicle collision in 2010.
Defendant Lone Star was served through its registered agent, Rafael Sanchez. In December
2012, Sanchez was added as a defendant. The clerk’s record does not show that Sanchez was
served in an individual capacity. Sanchez was named in the trial court’s charge in Jury Issue
Number 4 which stated: “Did J.C. Brown and Rafael Sanchez (individually or on behalf of Lone
Star) engage in a conspiracy to unlawfully operate a towing business that resulted in damage to
Irene Garcia?” The jury answered the question affirmatively. The trial court entered judgment
against Sanchez, and this appeal followed.
In five issues, Sanchez argues the trial court erred in rendering judgment against him
because the court did not have personal jurisdiction over him in an individual capacity, depriving
him of his constitutional guarantee of due process, and the court erred in submitting Jury Issue
Number 4 because it was not supported by the pleadings and refers to him in his individual
capacity. He also argues that Jury Issue Number 4 was confusing and inadequate to support a
judgment against him. However, Sanchez failed to file a reporter’s record.
The burden is on the appellant to present a sufficient record to show error requiring
reversal. Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990). The appellate record
consists of the clerk’s record and, if necessary to the appeal, the reporter’s record. TEX.R.APP. P.
34.1. Issues depending on the state of evidence cannot be reviewed without a complete record,
including a reporter’s record. Palla v. Bio-One, Inc., 424 S.W.3d 722, 727 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2014, no pet.). To obtain a reporter’s record, appellant must request that the court reporter
prepare it and arrange for payment of the reporter’s fee for doing so. TEX.R.APP. P. 35.3(b). The
request must designate exhibits and portions of the proceedings to be included, and a copy of the
request must be filed with the trial court. TEX.R.APP. P. 34.6(b).
When a reporter’s record is included in the appellate record, the trial court’s findings of
fact on the disputed issues are not conclusive, and are subject to challenge for legal sufficiency.
Sixth RMA Partners, L.P. v. Sibley, 111 S.W.3d 46, 52 (Tex.2003). However, without a
reporter’s record, an appellate court is unable to determine if sufficient evidence was submitted
–2–
to support the trial court’s judgment. Carstar Collision, Inc. v. Mercury Fin. Co., 23 S.W.3d
368, 370 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). When an appellant fails to bring a
reporter’s record, an appellate court must presume the evidence presented was sufficient to
support the trial court’s order. Willms v. Americas Tire Co., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 796, 803
(Tex.App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied). Furthermore, without a complete record brought forward
by appellant, the court will conclude appellant has waived the points of error dependent on the
state of the evidence. Favaloro v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 994 S.W.2d 815, 820 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1999, pet. struck).
Sanchez has not provided us with a reporter’s record to make his appellate complaints
within each of his issues viable. Thus, he has failed to meet his burden to present a sufficient
record to show error requiring reversal. See Willms, 190 S.W.3d at 803; Carstar, 23 S.W.3d at
370. Where, as here, the issues on appeal necessarily involve consideration of portions of the
proceedings omitted from the appellate record, we must presume those omitted portions support
the trial court’s ruling. See Willms, 190 S.W.3d at 803; TEX.R.APP. P. 34.6(b). By failing to
provide an adequate appellate record, Sanchez has waived our review of his complaints. See
Favaloro, 994 S.W.2d at 820.
Sanchez further argues that the clerk’s record fails to disclose any notations on the docket
that he made a general appearance and the absence of such notations is conclusive that he did not
enter a general appearance in this case. In general, a docket sheet entry forms no part of the
record that may be considered. Ashton Grove L.C. v. Jackson Walker L.L.P., 366 S.W.3d 790,
796 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). One reason for not considering docket entries on appeal
is because they are inherently unreliable. Id. Although docket entries may supply facts in
certain situations, they cannot be used to contradict or prevail over a final judicial order. N–S–W
Corp. v. Snell, 561 S.W.2d 798, 799 (Tex. 1977). As a limited exception, docket entries may be
–3–
examined to correct clerical errors in judgments or orders to determine the meaning of words
used in a judgment or order. Ashton Grove, 366 S.W.3d at 796. However, such is not the case
here. Even if the docket sheet had presented a notation that Sanchez did not enter a general
appearance, without a reporter’s record and absent a clerical error, it would not be reviewed as
part of the record for the aforementioned reasons. See id. Accordingly, we need not further
address Sanchez’s complaints.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
131020F.P05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
RAFAEL SANCHEZ, Appellant On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-13-01020-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-07132-D.
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges.
IRENE GARCIA, Appellee Justices Francis and Lang-Miers
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee IRENE GARCIA recover her costs of this appeal from
appellant RAFAEL SANCHEZ.
Judgment entered this 25th day of June, 2014.
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
–5–