### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-08-00428- CV

Charlie Ray Taylor, Appellant

v. State of Texas; G overnor R ick P err y; Susan Com bs, Com ptroller of P ubl ic Acc ounts; and S enator R odney El lis, App ellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 53RD J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. D-1 -GN-0 7-0 0104 6, H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Charlie Ray Tay lor appea ls a take- nothing summary judgme n t gra n ted on his claims of wrong ful imprisonment and civil rig hts violations. He contends that the trial court failed
to provide a court repor

ter. He complains that he has never had a probable cause finding , an arr est

war rant, a rea ding of Miranda rig hts, a complete ju ry , a p roper prosec utor, or a proper ly assessed

s en t en ce in the Walker County felony conviction that has resulted in his imprisonment for life. Appellee s soug ht summary judgme nt contending that Tay lor’s complaints failed as a matter of law. The trial c ourt g rante d the motion. W e af firm. Tay lor complains on appea l that he was deprive d of a court repor ter’s rec ord from the hear ing on his motion for summary judgme nt. T h e cl er k ’s rec ord does not reve al that Tay lor
reque sted at the trial court level that a repor ter be prese nt. This er ro r i s n o t p roperly prese rved for app el l at e revie w. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. More important, repor ters are neither nece ssarynor appropr iate at summary -judg ment hear ings beca use no testimony is r ece ived. Schneide r Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Bates , 147 S.W .3d 264, 291 n.141 (Tex. 2004); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c ); Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth. , 589 S.W .2d 671, 677 (Tex. 1979). Tay lor has not demonstrated

err or in the abse nce of

a re porter’ s rec ord in this case. Tay lor contends that the trial court err ed by g ranting summary judgme nt on his claim for compensation for wrong ful imprisonment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code An n . § 1 0 3

. 003 (West Supp. 2009). Appellee s soug ht summary judgme nt contending that Tay lor failed to alleg e the fac ts require d to qualify for relief under this statute. A person is entitled to compensa tion under that
statute only if the person either h as re ce i v ed a full pardon on the basis of i nnocenc e for the crime for which the person was sentenc ed or has been g rante d relief on the basis of actual innocenc e of the cr i m e fo r wh i ch the person was sentenc ed. Id

. Tay lor does not alleg e that he meets either

co n d i t i o n . T o the contra ry , he states that he is in prison. The trial court did not err by g ranting
summary judgme nt on this claim. Tay lor complains that many asp ec t s o f t h e conduct of his case leading to the conviction for which he is imprisoned violated t h e co n s t i t ution and statutes. He states that he has ra i s ed t h es e issues on appea l and by petition for writ of habea s corpus. Appellee s soug ht
summary judgme nt on the basis that Tay lor failed to alleg e or offe r evidenc e that these appellee s

wer e responsible for the alleg ed denials of rig hts. The rec ord cont ai ns no indication that Tay lor amende d his alleg ations or filed a ny evidenc e supporting his c laims. Be cause Tay lor failed to file
any evidenc e supporting his c laims, the trial court did not err by g ranting summary judgme nt. See

2Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i); Hamilton v. W ilson , 249 S.W .3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008); King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman , 118 S.W .3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003).

Affir med.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Affir med Filed: De cembe r 2, 2009

3