### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 69 -C R

______________________________ BRENT ROSS PEEK, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 102nd Judi cial District Court

Red River County , Texas Trial Court No. CR01334

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte r2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Br ent R o ss Peek appe als his conviction for intoxi cation manslaughter, a second de g ree fe lony , b e c a

us e the ind ic tme nt a

nd jud g me nt r e fl e c te d c onvic tio n o f a fi rs t degre e fe lony . H e a lso argues the c ourt repor

ter' s summary -for

m tr anscr iption wa s fundame ntal err or. We r efor m the trial court' s judgme nt to reflec t Peek' s conviction of a second deg ree felony and hold t hat Peek wa ived his right to complain a

bout the court re porter' s summary statements on appe al. I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound Witha ne ar- le tha l blo od -a lc oh ol le ve l of 0. 29 , Pe e k w a s d

ri vin g a Sub ur ba n c on ta ini nghis g irlfriend a

nd her ba by when he lost contro l o f t h e v eh icle. The Suburban sped through a ditch, plowed throug h a street sign, cra shed throug h a fenc e, and flipped over five or six tim es befor e restingon its roof. Peek' s g irlfri en d an d h er baby wer e both ejec ted. While Peek' s g irlfriend survived the a ccide nt, her ba by was found ly

ing f ace down in the ditch and was p ro n o unced de ad at the sce ne. A L ifeNe t paramedic testified he believed the Suburban had r olled over the baby
. Peek wa s char g ed with "intoxication manslaug hter 1st Degree Fe lony " unde r Section 49.08 of the Te x as Penal Code. A trial by jury resulted in his conviction. Peek pled true to enhanc ement pa ra g ra ph s in the ind ic tme nt l ist ingtw o f ina l f e lony c onvic tion caus e nu mbe rs fo r d ri vin g wh ile int oxic a te d ( DWI ). B a se d o n th e e nh anc e me nts , the tr ia l c ourt se nte nc e d Pe e k to fo rt

y -o ne y e ars ' imp ri so nme nt. Th e jud g me nt of c onvic tio n er ro ne ou sly lis te d intoxic a tio n ma

ns la ug hte r a s a

fi rs t deg ree felony

offe nse.In his brief, Pee k claims that the "Re porter' s Record does not r efle ct which witnesses w ere 1 sworn or even how many witnesses." Howeve r, befor e testimony of eac h of the nine witnesses, the rec ord includes the w itness' na me and the f

act that they

had bee n "duly

sworn." 3 The tra nscript of the pr ocee dings r evea led that the cour t reporte r use d s i x summary statements duringthe trial. Instead of inc luding the na mes of the juror s, the court r eporte r only stated "Jury seate d." Rather than transcr ibing the oath given to the j ury and witnesses, the cour t reporte r
summa ri ly tr ans c ri be d " Jury

sw or n, " " Witn e sse s sw or

n, " and " Witn ess sw or

n. " As a sh or tc ut t o 1
rec ordingthe substance of t he indictment re ad to the jury , the re porter me rely ty ped " Indictment
rea d." " Discussion at benc h" w as the on l y notation transcr ibed for be nch conf ere nces. Pee k contends this summary

transcr iption was fundamenta l error
. II. Stand ard of Review Whet h e r into xic a ti o nma

n s la u g h te r is a f ir s t o r s e c o n d d e g r e e f e lo n y is anis s u e o f

la w. Simi larly , the d et er mination of whether the cour t reporte r' s summary

statements constituted fundame ntal err or re quires no cr edibility deter mination. Si nce both issues a re ba sed on undisputed fac ts, we will review

de novo these iss ues of law. Se e ge ne ra lly Gu zm an v . S tate , 955 S.W .2d 85, 87 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); Br os se ttev . S tate , 99 S.W .3d 277, 280 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. dism'd, untimely

filed).4

III . Ana lys is A. We Re form the F inal Ju dgm ent to Re fl ec t Co n v i ction for a Second Degree F e lon y In h is f ir st poi nt of e rr or , Pee k co nte nd s he w a s e rr on e ou sly ind ic te d a

nd c onvic te d o f a

fi rs t deg ree felony . Intox ication manslaug hter is a se cond degree felony except in circumstanc es not applicable here . T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § § 4 9. 08 (b ), 49 .0 9( b- 2) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). I f i t is shown at t rial for a second deg ree felony that the defendant had previously been c onvicted of a

nother felony , punishment can fall within the rang e prescribe d for a first deg ree felony . T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12 .4 2( b) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ); W

ill iam s v . S

tate , No. 05-04-01681- CR, 2006 WL121949, at *3–4 (Te x . App.—Dallas, Jan. 18, 2006, no pet.) (not desig nated for publication). This proce dure
wa s u se d to e nh anc e Pe e k' s p un ishme nt r ang e and a llo we d f or the imp os iti on

of a fo rt y -o ne y e ar j a il
s en t en ce . Ho we v er , th i s p ro ce d ure d o es n o t i n cr ea s e th e l ev el o f t h e o ri gi n al o ff en s e. T hu s , P ee k 's first point of err or is well taken. The State conce des this point and asks this Court to " ref orm the judge ment of the trial court to modify the deg ree of off

ense f rom a fir s t d egr ee fe l o n y to a sec ond deg ree felony ." T he Te x as Rules of Appellate Procedur e g ive this Court authority to refor m judgments a nd corr ect ty pog raphic al err ors to ma

ke the rec ord speak the truth. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 3. 2; Fr e nc h v . S tate , 830 S.W. 2d 60 7, 60 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); Ba ttl e v . S tate , No. 06-07-00148- CR, 2008 W L482343, at *3 (Tex. A

pp.—Texarkana Fe b. 25, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not de signated fo r p u b l i cation) (re forming judgme nt to ref lect proper statute under which def endant should have been c onvicted);5

Gray v . S tate , 628 S.W .2d 228, 233 (Tex. A pp.—Corpus Christi 1982, pet. re f' d). We here by modify the trial cour

t's judg ment to refle ct conviction of a second de g ree felony
. B. P eek Waived Errorin Reporter 's Recor d by Failing to Ob jec t at Trial In his nex t point of error, Peek contends fundamental error occurr ed when the cour t reporte r transcr ibed summary statements such as "Jury seate d," " J ury

sworn," "I

ndictment rea d," " Wit nesses
sw or n, " " Witn e ss s wo rn ," and " Di sc us sio n at be nc h. " A c ourt re po rte r h a s a

duty to r e c or d a ll proce eding s unless expressly waived. Rittenhouse v. Sabine Val ley Ctr. Found., Inc ., 161 S.W .3d 157, 161 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.). However , the l aw is cle ar that error from a c ourt repor ter' s failure to m ak e a re co rd is waived unless objec ted to at trial. Va laz qu e z v . S tate , 222 S.W. 3d 55 1, 55 6– 57 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14t h Di st. ] 20 07 , n o p e t.) ; J on es v . S tate , 942 S.W. 2d 1, 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ) ( ob je c tio n r e qu ir e d to pr e se rv e e rr or ste mmi ngfr om f

a ilure to tr ans c ri be vo ir

dir e pr oc e e din g s) ; Ri tte nh ou se , 1 6 1 S
. W
. 3 d at1 6 1 (c i t i n g Va llev . S

tate , 109 S.W .3d 500, 508–0 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding obje ction require d to preser ve er ror if be nch
c on fe re nc e no t r e c or de d) ); B r o s s e tte , 9 9 S
. W
. 3 d at2 8 3

– 8 5 (r ef

er en ci n g W

ill iam s v . S

tate , 937 S.W .2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)); see T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1( a) (re quires objection at trial cour t le ve l a s a pr e re qu isi te to p re se nti ngc omp la int fo r a pp e llate re vie w) . Pe e k a g re e s w iththi s w e llestablished law, a

nd, citing Jones , 942 S.W .2d 1, also rec og nizes that the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls "ha s specific ally conclude d a similar fai l ure by the Court Reporter

to transcr ibe the proce eding s was not fundamental er ror." Be cause the er

ror created by

the cour t reporte r' s summary6

transcr iption is not fundamenta l and Peek f ailed to o b

j ec t at t ri al, he wa ived the er ror, a nd our inquiry into this matter should end he re. Ne ve rt he le ss, P eek con tends that " the Te xas C ourt of Cr imi na l App e a ls w a s in c or re c t" beca use the re quirement to object is impossibl e to comply with since trial attorne y s cannot " look at the c ourt re po rt e r t o s e e an a

bs e nc e of a c tiv ity ," and

dia g no se the pr ob le m w he re a re po rt e r i s transcr ibing summary

statements. This issue has been a ddresse d befor e. In Valazquez , ap p el l an t 's argument that he wa s unawa re the court re porter f

ailed to re cord be nch c o nfer ence s was not
rec og nized as an exception to th e rule requiringan objec tion at trial. 222 S.W .3d at 557 n.4. Valazquez further pointed out " [e] ven assumingsuch an e x ception should be re cog nized, appellant fai led t o c ite any

e vid e nc e to s up po rt

his fa c tua l a sse rt ion

tha t he wa s una

wa re , a nd he fa ile d to develop suc h a re cord w it h a m o t i o n for ne w trial." We have bindingprec edent f rom the Texas Court of Criminal A

ppeals and our own decisions on this issue. Any chang e in the interpre tation of the law, in c ri min a l c a se s, sh ou ld c ome fr om t he state ' s h ig he st c ourt ex erci si ng jur isd ic tio n in criminal law c ases. We re

ject Peek' s argument that we should make an exception to well-established Texas prec edent. Peek als o co n t en d s that failure of the c ourt repor ter to include la

rg e portions of the tria l implicates a defe ndant' s constitutional rig hts. In support of his position on this second point, Peek
c ite s Tedford v. Hepting , a fe de ra l T hir d Ci rc uit c a se tha t he ld " a c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n w ou ld
occur o n ly if th e in a c c ur a c ie s in

th e tr an s c r ip t a dv e r s e ly

a f f e c te d " th e o u tc o me o f

th e c r im in al7

pr oc e e din g . 9 90 F .2 d 7 45 , 7 47 (3rd Ci r. 19 93 ). T his is n ot a c on c e pt n ov e l to the Th ir d Ci rc uit
. Rule 44.2 of th e T exas Rules of Appellate Proc edure specifie s any err or that does not af

fec t
su bs tanti a l r ig hts must b e dis re g ard e d. Ev e n if c on sti tut ion a l e rr or

is i nv olv e d, re ve rs a l is
unne c e ssa

ry if " the c ourt

de te rm ine s b e y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t that the e rr or

did no t c on tr ibute to th e con vi cti on or t he p un is hm ent ." T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 4. 2; Br os se tte , 99 S.W .3d at 285. Peek ha s not pointed this Court t o any thing that sug g ests the proc edure complained of aff ecte d the outcome of Peek' s trial, and our re v iew of the rec ord has r evea led none. Pee k' s failure to object to the
no nf un dame nta l e rr or

wa ive d h is r ig ht t o c omp la in ab out the c ourt re po rt e r' s summa ry state me nts on appea l. IV. Conclusion We hold that Peek waived his rig ht to complain of the c ourt repor ter' s summary

transcr iption on appea l. Since intox ication manslaug hter is a second deg ree felony , we c orre ct Peek' s err oneous8

first deg ree felony

indictment and conviction of intoxi cation manslaughter b y re forming the judgme nt to reflec t a conviction of a seco n d deg ree felony

offe nse. As re formed, w e af firm the judgme nt of the trial cour t.

J ack Ca rter J ustice
Date Submitted: Dec ember 1, 2008 Date D ecide d: Dec ember 4, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh