COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Raymond Jackson v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-21-00360-CR

Trial court case number: 1520691

Trial court: 184th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Raymond Jackson, timely filed a notice of appeal from his conviction of 

the felony offense of murder. On January 6, 2022, counsel for appellant filed an appellant’s 

brief in this appeal. Appellant’s brief includes an external hyperlink to a Dropbox folder 

containing State’s Exhibits 07 and 94, which were offered by the State, and admitted by 

the trial court, at trial. These exhibits are videos containing surveillance footage which 

captured the commission of the alleged offense.

The State has filed a Motion to Seal or Strike Appellant’s Brief requesting that we 

“seal or strike the appellant’s brief due to the inclusion of” the Dropbox folder containing 

the above-described exhibits. The State argues that we should seal or strike appellant’s 

brief because, given the nature of the offense, the video footage should not be publicly 

viewable on the Court’s website “to anyone and everyone who wants to see it,” and further 

because the “link is unnecessary for [a]ppellant to reference the exhibits to make his 

argument.”

Before addressing the merits of the State’s motion, we first note that the surveillance 

video footage in question here is unquestionably graphic in nature and agree with the State 

that the images included should not necessarily be “readily-available to anyone and 

everyone who wants to see it – from the idly-curious to the depraved.” However, we also 

note that the appellate record establishes that the surveillance video footage in question, 

State’s Exhibits 07 and 94, were offered at trial by the State, admitted by the trial court, 

and published to the jury. Further, the appellate record does not appear to include any 

request or other effort by any party for the trial court to seal State’s Exhibits 07 or 94. 

With respect to the State’s request to seal appellant’s brief, we note that the State 

has not cited to any authority directing us to any authority this Court has to sua sponte seal 

an appellant’s brief. Generally, this Court’s authority to seal briefs or other records is 

limited, including to situations where: (1) a document includes “sensitive data” as defined
2

in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.10, and (2) a party seeks to file documents, or 

references documents in a brief, which have been sealed by the trial court. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.10; see also R.V.K. v. L.L.K., 103 S.W.3d 612, 614 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

2003, no pet.). Based on our review of the appellate record, and the arguments presented 

in the State’s motion, neither situation applies here. Accordingly, we deny the State’s 

request to seal appellant’s brief.

We next consider the State’s request to strike appellant’s brief. Again, the State’s 

motion does not cite to any authority in support of its requested relief. However, the

external hyperlink to a Dropbox folder included in appellant’s brief, which includes copies 

of the surveillance videos admitted by the trial court as State’s Exhibits 07 and 94, are not 

a part of the appellate record. This Court generally may only review and consider those 

items that are a part of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1; see also Whitehead 

v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (appellate court’s review limited to 

documents included in appellate record). 

Notably, the reporter’s record filed by the official court reporter for the 184th 

District Court does not include certified copies of the surveillance videos admitted by the 

trial court as State’s Exhibits 07 and 94. However, where an item or exhibit is missing 

from the reporter’s record, a party, or the Court, may request that the missing item(s) or 

exhibit(s) be included in a supplemental reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(d). 

Because appellant failed to make such a request of the court reporter, and instead included 

a hyperlink to an external Dropbox folder which is not a part of the appellate record, and 

therefore not reviewable by this Court, we grant the State’s motion to strike appellant’s 

brief. We strike appellant’s brief filed on January 6, 2022. We further direct appellant, 

within ten days of the date of this order, to re-file his brief without the inclusion of 

the link to the external Dropbox folder.

Finally, we direct the official court reporter, or substitute court reporter, for the 

184th District Court to prepare, certify and file a supplemental reporter’s record including 

certified copies of the videos included in State’s Exhibits 07 and 94. See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.6(d). The supplemental reporter’s record is due to be filed with the Clerk of this 

Court within fifteen days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Amparo Guerra______

  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __January 20, 2022____