Reinstated; Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed April 7, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00922-CR

KAREN WOODING BRYANT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1872448

OPINION

A jury convicted appellant of the misdemeanor offense of assault of a family 

member. On September 12, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant to 

confinement for one year in the Harris County Jail and assessed a fine of $4,000. 

The trial court probated the sentence and placed appellant on community 

supervision for nine months. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

The reporter’s record from the trial was due on or before November 11, 

2013. Sondra Humphrey, the substitute court reporter responsible for the record in 
2

this case, has not filed the reporter’s record from the trial. 

On April 10, 2014, we abated the appeal and directed the trial court to 

conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the record. The 

Hon. Sherman A. Ross, the former Presiding Judge of the Harris County Criminal 

Courts at Law, was assigned to hear the proceedings regarding the past due 

reporter’s records taken by Sondra Humphrey in this case and eight other cases 

pending in both this court and the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas. 

See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.056 (West 2013). Judge Ross issued many orders 

and conducted numerous hearings to assist the appellate courts in obtaining the 

reporter’s records in these cases. After it became apparent that Ms. Humphrey was 

unable to provide a complete record in this case, Judge Ross ordered Ms. 

Humphrey to provide the court with her computerized stenographic notes and an 

audio recording of the trial so that another court reporter could attempt to complete 

the record. After much delay, Ms. Humphrey’s notes and an audio recording in this 

case were delivered to the court. Judge Ross appointed another court reporter to 

attempt to reconstruct the record, but that court reporter was unable to do so. After 

finding that Ms. Humphrey violated several of the court’s orders, Judge Ross held 

her in contempt of court. On August 15, 2014, Judge Ross sentenced Ms. 

Humphrey to confinement for 30 days in the Harris County Jail and assessed a 

$500 fine. 

Records from several hearings conducted by Judge Ross were filed in this 

court. In addition, counsel for the State submitted proposed Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law concerning the status of the records for this case and eight 

other cases reported by Ms. Humphrey. Based upon these records and the State’s 

proposed findings and conclusions, it appeared that the reporter’s record in this 

appeal may have been “lost or destroyed” for purposes of appeal.
3

On November 20, 2014, this court issued an order directing Judge Ross to 

make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning whether appellant 

is entitled to a new trial, as required under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.6(f). Rule 34.6(f) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, entitled 

“Reporter’s Record Lost of Destroyed,” provides that an appellant is entitled to a 

new trial when the reporter=s record or exhibits are lost, under the following 

circumstances:

(1) if the appellant timely requested a reporter’s record;

(2) if, without the appellant=s fault, a significant exhibit or a 

significant portion of the court reporter=s notes and records has been 

lost or destroyed or—if the proceedings were electronically 

recorded—a significant portion of the recording has been lost or 

destroyed or is inaudible;

(3) if the lost, destroyed, or inaudible portion of the reporter=s record, 

or the lost or destroyed exhibit, is necessary to the appeal=s resolution; 

and

(4) if the lost, destroyed or inaudible portion of the reporter=s record 

cannot be replaced by agreement of the parties, or the lost or 

destroyed exhibit cannot be replaced either by agreement of the 

parties or with a copy determined by the trial court to accurately 

duplicate with reasonable certainty the original exhibit.

Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f).

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has determined that an incomplete 

record does not result in an automatic reversal under the 1997 amended appellate 

rules. See Issac v. State, 989 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Instead, a 

harm analysis is required when considering a missing or incomplete reporter’s 

record. Id. at 757. The provision in Rule 34.6 requiring an appellant to show that 

the missing portion of the record is necessary to her appeal is essentially a 

requirement that the appellate court perform a harm analysis. Nava v. State, 415 

S.W.3d 289, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554, 
4

571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)). If the missing portion of the record is not necessary 

to the appeal’s resolution, then the loss of that portion of the record is harmless and 

a new trial is not required. Routier, 112 S.W.3d at 571–72; Issac, 989 S.W.2d at 

757.

On March 3, 2015, Judge Ross filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

which were made part of a supplemental clerk’s record filed March 11, 2015. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered reinstated. Included in the trial court’s findings 

of fact were the following:

At the request of the parties, the undersigned judge directed Brenna 

DeMoss, official court reporter for County Criminal Court at Law No. 

11 of Harris County, Texas, to review the audio files, and 

stenographic notes submitted to the Court by Ms. Humphrey.

Ms. DeMoss could not reconstruct a complete reporter’s record based 

upon the audio and stenographic notes submitted to the Court by Ms. 

Humphrey.

Ms. Humphrey’s medical condition, personal, and professional 

problems during the latter part of 2013, and early 2014, up to and 

including the contempt hearings [in this case and eight other cases] 

indicate she may not have been in a condition to transcribe the 

proceedings, or otherwise conduct herself in a professional manner. 

The appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

This case did not involve a waiver of a court reporter, nor was it a 

mere formality or summary proceeding.

The appellant bears no fault for Ms. Humphrey’s failure to complete 

and file the reporter’s record.

The reporter’s record is necessary to the appeal’s resolution.

The reporter’s record cannot be replaced by agreement of the parties 

to the facts contained in the record, if [no] complete and legible record 

exists.

The exhibits or copies of the exhibits are available.

Based upon Ms. Humphrey’s representations to this court regarding 

the status of the reporter’s record, and her failure to either file the 
5

completed record or provide the court with stenographic notes capable 

of being transcribed by another official court reporter using the same 

software system resulting in a complete record[,] this Court does not 

find Ms. Humphrey to be credible. 

The undersigned finds Ms. Humphrey failed to file the record because 

she had neither a complete stenographic record, nor a complete audio 

recording of the proceedings in the trial court; or she willfully refused 

and continues to refuse to fully and accurately transcribe her notes.

This Court does not believe a complete record will ever be filed by 

Ms. Humphrey or another court reporter.

Judge Ross also made the following conclusions of law:

Sondra Humphrey violated her oath to keep a correct, impartial record 

of (1) the evidence offered in the case; (2) the objections and 

exceptions made by the parties to the case; and (3) the rulings and 

remarks made by the court in determining the admissibility of 

testimony presented in the case. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 52.045(b) 

(West Supp. 2014).

The appellant is entitled to a new trial. Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f).

We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that appellant is entitled to a new 

trial. Judge Ross determined that Ms. Humphrey’s notes and audio recording were 

incomplete and incapable of being transcribed by another court reporter. The 

record supports Judge Ross’s finding that the reporter’s record in this case is 

irretrievably lost. See Johnson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2004) (stating a court reporter’s notes and records can be considered “lost” only if 

the missing portions of the appellate record are irretrievable); see Mendoza v. 

State, 439 S.W.3d 564, 565 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, no pet.) (finding appellant 

was entitled to a new trial where the court reporter was unable to transcribe certain 

portions of the record due to incomplete notes and inaudible cassettes from the 

original reporter who had since passed away). Judge Ross conducted numerous 

hearings and issued many orders, including orders that Ms. Humphrey remain at 
6

the courthouse to work on the record, in an effort to obtain a complete reporter’s 

record. Judge Ross ultimately found Ms. Humphrey in contempt of court for 

failure to comply with his orders to complete the record. See Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 

at 196 (stating a court should exercise its contempt power to compel an errant court 

reporter to prepare and file the record). When it became apparent that Ms. 

Humphrey would not file a complete and accurate record, the court unsuccessfully 

attempted to have another court reporter transcribe the record from Ms. 

Humphrey’s notes and audio recording. See Routier, 112 S.W.3d at 567 (approving 

the trial court’s use of another court reporter to correct and edit an inaccurate 

reporter’s record). 

We also agree with Judge Ross’s finding that the missing reporter’s record is 

necessary to appellant’s appeal. A new trial is required when the missing record is 

necessary to the appeal’s resolution. Osuch v. State, 976 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (concluding a destroyed videotape of the 

driver performing field sobriety tests was “necessary to the appeal’s resolution” 

and the defendant was entitled to a new trial because he challenged whether a 

custodial interrogation occurred during his performance of the tests).

We have no reporter’s record from the entire trial. Appellant’s ability to 

present meaningful issues on appeal after a jury trial is severely limited in the 

absence of a reporter’s record. In a criminal case, if appellant complains that “the 

evidence is insufficient to support a finding of guilt, the record must include all the 

evidence admitted at the trial on the issue of guilt or innocence and punishment.” 

Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c)(5). Without a complete reporter’s record of the evidence 

before the jury, appellant cannot demonstrate the evidence is insufficient. Martin v. 

State, 13 S.W.3d 133, 140 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.). We therefore 

conclude that appellant has been harmed by the absence of a reporter’s record.
7

The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and this cause is remanded for a new 

trial.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally.

Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).