COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Johnathan Ross Nickerson v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00096-CR

Trial court case number: 1238640

Trial court: 177th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s brief was originally due on March 24, 2014. On March 24, 2014, 

appellant filed a “Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief,” requesting a 60-day 

extension of the deadline for filing his brief. We granted the motion the same day, 

making the deadline for filing appellant’s brief May 23, 2014.

On May 23, 2014, appellant filed a “Second Motion to Extend Time to File 

Appellant’s Brief.” Although styled as a second motion, the motion is identical to 

appellant’s March 24, 2014 motion, except that the second motion acknowledges that a 

previous extension has been granted. 

In the motion, appellant contends that his brief “is presently due on March 24, 

2014,” and he “requests an extension of time of 60 days from the present date, i.e. March 

24, 2014.” Appellant further contends, as he did in his first motion, that the reporter’s 

record on file with the Court is a partial, rather than a complete, record, and that he “is 

coordinating with the trial reporter to obtain the rest of the record.” Appellant fails, 

however, to either state what is missing from the reporter’s record or otherwise inform 

the Court of how the reporter’s record is incomplete. Further, the court reporter has 

certified that each volume of the reporter’s record “contains a true and correct 

transcription of all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by 

counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter’s Record,” and there 

are no volumes that appear to be missing from the record filed with the Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 34.6(a)(1) (stating “the reporter’s record consists of the court reporter’s 

transcription of so much of the proceedings, and all of the exhibits, that the parties to the 

appeal designate”), (b)(1) (requiring that appellant request portions of proceedings to be 
included in reporter’s record), 35.3(b)(1) (imposing duty on reporter to prepare record 

after appellant requests preparation of record). 

Appellant has neither presented any facts that were not presented in his first 

motion for extension nor shown that the reporter’s record on file with the Court is 

incomplete. Appellant has therefore not presented any facts that would reasonably 

explain the need for a second 60-day extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C) 

(requiring motion for extension to state facts relied on to reasonably explain need for 

extension), 38.6(d) (authorizing extensions of time to file brief if appellant files motion in 

compliance with Rule 105.(b)).

Accordingly, we deny appellant’s second motion for extension of time. Unless 

appellant, within 10 days of the date of this order, files either his brief or a proper motion 

for extension of time, this appeal may be abated for a hearing pursuant to Rule 38.8(b). 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 30, 2014