Court Opinion

ID: 9363680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 14:09:13.941309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:33.436480
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-21-00499-CR

                                         Bryant KENDRICK,
                                              Appellant

                                                   v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                    From the 454th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 18-07-12941-CR
                           Honorable Daniel J. Kindred, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 11, 2023

AFFIRMED

           A jury convicted Bryant Kendrick of aggravated assault on a public servant causing serious

bodily injury. After Kendrick plead true to a single enhancement, the trial court sentenced

Kendrick to 45 years confinement and imposed a $5,000 fine. On appeal, Kendrick asserts two

issues: (1) the trial court erred in conducting a portion of the trial in Kendrick’s absence; and

(2) Kendrick should receive a new trial because the juror qualifications and exemptions portion of

the trial was lost. We affirm.
                                                                                             04-21-00499-CR

                                            BACKGROUND

        On October 11, 2021, at 9:19 a.m., the trial court commenced trial proceedings by asking

the parties to announce. The State announced, “The State is ready, Your Honor.” Kendrick’s

counsel announced, “The defense is ready, Your Honor.” The trial court then swore in the venire

and assessed juror qualifications and exemptions at the bench. Juror qualifications and exemptions

were not recorded by the court reporter; rather, the record states, “(At the bench off the record).”

The trial court completed juror qualifications and exemptions by 9:57 a.m. and announced a thirty-

minute break. At 10:43 a.m., the trial court commenced voir dire by asking the parties to identify

themselves for the record. After the State’s announcements, Kendrick’s counsel stated, “Robert

Bland for the defense and Brian Kendrick the defendant.” Kendrick later took the stand in his own

defense.

                             RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRESENCE AT TRIAL

        In his first issue, Kendrick asserts the trial court erred in considering juror qualifications

and exemptions in his absence. Article 33.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides

in relevant part:

                In all prosecutions for felonies, the defendant must be personally
                present at the trial . . . When the record in the appellate court shows
                that the defendant was present at . . . any portion of the trial, it shall
                be presumed in the absence of all evidence in the record to the
                contrary that he was present during the whole trial.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 33.03. Here, it is undisputed that Kendrick’s trial commenced prior

to juror qualifications and exemptions because jurors were assigned to Kendrick’s case rather than

convened as part of a general assembly. Therefore, Kendrick’s presence was required while the

trial court conducted juror qualifications and exemptions.

        Importantly, Kendrick does not argue that he was not actually present in the courtroom at

that time. Rather, Kendrick argues the record does not expressly reflect his presence at that time.

                                                   -2-
                                                                                         04-21-00499-CR

The record, however, does reflect Kendrick’s presence during the trial when he was introduced to

the jury at the commencement of voir dire. Kendrick also took the stand in his own defense.

Therefore, we are required to presume he was present during juror qualifications and exemptions

absent evidence to the contrary. Id.; see also Bridge v. State, 726 S.W.2d 558, 572 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1986) (requiring evidence to rebut presumption of appellant’s presence during the whole trial

where appellant was present at portion of trial). Kendrick offers no evidence to rebut this

presumption. We overrule Kendrick’s first issue.

                                            LOST RECORD

        In his second issue, Kendrick asserts the court reporter’s failure to transcribe all

proceedings resulted in the qualifications and exemptions portion of the transcript being “lost.”

Kendrick contends he is entitled to a new trial. A new trial is required if: (1) appellant has timely

requested a reporter’s record; (2) a significant portion of the reporter’s record is lost or destroyed

at no fault of the appellant; (3) the lost or destroyed portion is necessary to resolution of the appeal;

and (4) the lost or destroyed portion of the reporter’s record cannot be replaced by agreement of

the parties. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f); Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289, 305–07 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013) (discussing the lost record rule).

        The lost record rule “by its plain wording, clearly applies only in situations in which a

portion of the proceedings was recorded, but was later lost or destroyed. When the complaining

party cannot show that the court reporter ever recorded the missing proceedings, he is not entitled

to a new trial . . .” Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479, 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (construing

predecessor to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f)) (emphasis in original). In stating “(At

the bench off the record),” the record establishes the court reporter did not take a record of the

qualifications and exemptions portion of trial, and Kendrick offers no evidence to the contrary.

                                                  -3-
                                                                                      04-21-00499-CR

Thus, there was no recording to be “lost,” and Kendrick is not entitled to a new trial under the lost

record rule. See Williams, 937 S.W.2d at 486.

       Moreover, to preserve error on a claim that the court reporter failed to record certain

proceedings, a defendant must make an objection to the trial court. Id. at 487. Kendrick made no

objection to the court reporter’s failure to transcribe juror qualifications and exemptions. We

overrule Kendrick’s second issue.

                                           CONCLUSION

       Having overruled Kendrick’s issues, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                -4-