Court Opinion

ID: 9365809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 07:11:08.619633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:47.973353
License: Public Domain

Order entered January 19, 2023

                                      In The
                              Court of Appeals
                       Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

                               No. 05-22-01229-CR

                          EX PARTE DAMON GOOD

               On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court
                            Collin County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. 380-05643-2022

                                     ORDER

      Before the Court is appellant’s January 4, 2023 motion to supplement the

record and the State’s January 6, 2023 response and motion for leave to file an

amended brief. The current motions arise from the State’s assertion in its brief that

appellant did not request an evidentiary hearing on his habeas application.

      Appellant seeks to supplement the record with printouts of an email

exchange between his counsel and the bailiff in which counsel inquired how to set

the case for a hearing and the bailiff informed counsel that the trial court would

hear the case by written submission. The State does not oppose supplementing the

record with the emails, but whether supplementation is granted or not, moves to
amend its brief to clarify that appellant only informally requested a hearing and

never objected to the trial court hearing the matter by written submission.

       In reviewing the trial court’s habeas ruling, we consider evidence admitted

in any hearing and in the record as it existed before the trial court at the time the

matter was heard. See Ex parte Martinez, 560 S.W.3d 681, 695 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2018, pet. ref’d); Ex parte Storm, 49 S.W.3d 401, 402 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth 2000, no pet.). Because there is no showing that the email exchange

between counsel and the bailiff was before the trial court and part of the record

when the trial court ruled on appellant’s habeas application, it is not part of the

record on appeal. See Martinez, 560 S.W.3d at 695; Storm, 49 S.W.3d at 402.

Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion.

      We GRANT the State’ s motion to amend its brief for the limited purpose of

clarifying that appellant never filed a formal request or motion for a hearing and

did not object to the trial court hearing the matter by submission. We ORDER the

State’s amended brief due within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.

      After the State files its amended brief, the Court will notify the parties by

letter of the submission date and panel that will consider the appeal.

                                               /s/   KEN MOLBERG
                                                     JUSTICE

                                         –2–