NO. 07-07 -029 9-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JAN UA RY

10, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ FRANK HERRERA, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 1 O F CO MA L COU NT Y; NO . 200 5- CR -2 133; HO NO RA BLE R AN DY GRAY , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Ap p e lla n t Fr a n k He rre ra , a p p e a rin g pr o s e here and in the trial c o u rt, app eals his conv ic ti on for theft of ser v ic es. W e di smi ss the appeal for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. Appel lan t w as conv ic ted b y a j ur y for theft of ser

v ic es of $500 or

more butl ess than $1,500, on J une 1, 2007. The c our t s entenc ed him to 180 day s i n j ail probated for tw enty four mont hs, ten day s shoc k jai l ti me, and a fine. Appel lan t fil ed a noti ce of appeal Ju ne 14 and t h e t r i a l c o u rtc e rt i fi e d a r i g h to f a p p e a l

. O n A u g u s t2 9 , a p p e l l a n tfi l e d a pr int ed documenti n t h i s c ourt den ominat ed "Pet it ion for D is cr eti onaryR ev iew ."See Te x . Code Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 26 .04 (o) (Vernon Su pp. 200 7). 1 See Te x . Code Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 26 .04 (m) (Vernon Supp . 200 7). 2 2 Con tem p o r a n e o u s l y

h e fi l e d a h a n d w r i t t e n m o t i o n a l l e g i n g i n d i g e n c e a n d re q u e s t ing app ointm entof

app ellate coun sel. Th e mo tion cont aine d no d ata supp orting appe llant’s claime d indigence . Appe llant f iled a seco nd " Pet ition for Discretion aryRev iew " in this court on Oc tober

15. The c ler k' s record and re por ter 's record w ere not ti mely filed nor did the cl er k o r re por

ter req uestan e xtens ion of ti me for preparati on of the re cord. Gi v en these facts, as w ell as an apparent i ss ue c oncer nin g appel lat e c erti ficat ion , w e abat ed th e c ase by opi nio n of O cto ber 19, 2007, w it h ins tr uct ion s for th e tr ial co urt t o conduct a hear ing to deter mine, inter alia , a p p e l l a n t ’ s i n d i g e n c e a n d w h e t h e r he w as enti tl ed to appoi nted couns el and a free record. On O c t o b e r 2 9 , a p p e l l a n t fi l e d a d o c u me n t w i t h t h i s c o u rt e n t i t l e d “ Affi d a v itof Indi g ence. ” Itbore a fil e s tamp from the c ler k o f th e t ria l co u rt o f M ay 31, 2007. In the af f idavit, appe llant sw ore he had no m ont hly incom e, ha d no ch ecking o r savings accou nts, re cei v ed no “c ontr ibu ti ons for hous ehol d s uppor t,” had fiv e mi nor

depend ant c hil dren, a nd re cei v ed medi cai d and food stamps for t he c hil dren. Appel lan t further av er re d he w as not abl e to pay

“ cour t c ost s.” Ap pel lan t di d notre q uestappoi ntment of couns el nor di d he decla re an ina bility

to em ploy counse l of

his o w n choo sing. T he a f f idavit did not ad dress 1 app ellant ’s ow nersh ip of assets ot her th a n c h e c k in g or savi ngs accoun ts or add ress spous al inc ome av ail abl e to appel lan t. 2The tr ial cour t’ s fin din g s n ote a ppel lan t w as deni ed an appoi nted couns el pr ior to 3 tr ial , and thatthe cour

t t hree ti mes ordered hi m to e mploy co unsel

. The findi ng s a ls o c it ed tr ial tes ti mony

by appel lan t and hi s w ife as ser ti ng i nformati on i ncons is tent w it h a fin din g of indi g ency , under ei ther the sta ndard set out in appell ate rul e 20. 2 for eli g ibi li ty for a free appel lat e rec o rd or th at s et ou t i n ar ti cl e 26. 04 of the code of cr imi nal procedu re for enti tl ement t o appoi nted couns el. See Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 26.04( o) ( Ver non S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ; Te x . R

. A p p . P

. 20.2 ; W h itehead v

. St ate , 130 S.W .3d 8 66, 8 78 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) ( desc ri bin g and appl y ing both i ndi g ency st andards)

. 3 The tr ial co urt c onv ened a hear ing on N ov ember 7 , 2007, t o c onsi der the is sues li s t e d in o u r O c t o b e r 1 9 o p in io n . Al t h o u gh t h e re c o rd re ve a ls t h e c o u rta d m in is t ra t o r ga ve h im no ti ce by m a il o n Oc to b e r 26 , a p p e lla n t d id no t a p p e a r atth e he a rin g. T he re po rte r ’ s rec ord of t he t r i al c ou rt’ s N ov em be r 7 h ea r i ng , an d th e tr i al c ou rt’ s det aile d f in dings of

fact m ade pursua nt to our instruction s, w ere f iled. T hey address appel lan t’ s i ndi g ence cl aim. The t ri al cour t concl uded appell ant w as not i ndi g ent a nd not enti tl ed to appoint e d a p p e llate cou nsel or a fre e record. Ev ide nce admit ted a t t he 3 Nov ember

7 he ar ing su ppor

ts the c our

t’ s c oncl usi ons. After w e recei v ed th e record from t he N ov ember 7 he ar ing , by letter of Nov ember 28 w e direct ed appell ant to f il e w ri tten proof of pay ment or sa ti sfactor

y ar ra ng ements for pr eparati on of the re por ter ’s re cord and cl er k’ s re cord w it hin tw enty day s. C it ing appel lat e rule 3 7 .3(b), w e ad v ised ap pellan t tha t failure to co mp ly as to the clerk’s record w ould re nder hi s a ppeal su bje ct to di smi ss al for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. In do cument s fil ed i n thi s c our t on Nov em ber

29 a nd D ecember

17, appel lan t appears t o argue f ro m appel lat e r ule 20.1 thatbec ause no par ty co ntes ted h is M ay

31, 2007, aff ida v ithe w as enti tl ed to appointed counsel and a free re cord. See Tex . R . Ap p.See Rod ri guez v. Sta te, 970 S.W .2d 133, 135 (Tex

. App.–A mari ll o 1998, pet. re f'd) 4 (a p p ly ing appel lat e r ule 2 i n s imi lar ci rc umstan ces ). See also Suther lan d v . St ate, 132 S.W .3d 5 10, 5 11- 12 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 4, no pet. ). 4 P. 20. 1(e), (f ). Rule 20. 1 app lies t o a party see king to p rocee d w ith app eal of a civ il case w it hout adv a n ce p a yme n t of co sts bec ause of indi g ence. I t c ontai ns no prov is ion for appoi ntment of couns el. R ule 20.1 has no a ppl ic ati on i n thi s c ri minal ca se. Nei ther doc ument fil ed by

appel lan t after

our Nov ember

28 letter to him chal len g es the tr ial court ’s f ind ing s or conc lus ion s, or offers a n ex pla nati on for his abs ence from the Nov ember

7 he ar ing

. In l etters fil ed i n thi s cour t on Dec ember 27, the t ri al cour t c ler k a nd cour t repor ter i nformed us thatappe lla n t h a d notco ntac ted t hem and had notmade ar ra ng ements for p ay ment of the re cord. Appell a n t has notsu ppl ied w ri tten proof of pay ment or sa ti sfactor

y ar ra ng ements as re q uired by

our Nov ember

28 letter

. The re por

ts of the c ler k a nd c our

t repor ter i ndi cat e he to ok no s teps ev en to make pay ment ar ra ng ements for t he $172 cl er k’ s record. W e find the c ler k’ s record has not been filed because appel lan t has fail ed to pay or make a rrang ements to pay the cl er k’ s fee for prepar ing the re cord. W e find als o appel lan t h a s h a d a re a s o n a b le o p p o rt u n it y t o c u re h is fa il u re . T e x. R. A p p . P

. 3 7

. 3 (b ). A c c o rd in gl y, and on our

ow n i nit iat iv e, w e di smi ss thi s a ppeal for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. 4

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.