Court Opinion

ID: 9669073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:38:41.268539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:51.960129
License: Public Domain

RICKHOFF, Justice,
concurring in result.
Because appellant was not sentenced in abstentia he was able to perfect this appeal. Moreover, it has long been the rule in this State that “[w]hen an appellant, through no fault of Ms own or Ms counsel’s, is deprived of a part of the statement of facts which he diligently requested, the appellate court cannot affirm the conviction.” Dunn v. State, 733 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). Since we must view all doubt in appellant’s favor, we must also conclude that he has demonstrated due diligence in requesting the statement of facts and that the record does not reflect that his negligence or fault contributed to the failure to have a complete statement of facts.
I agree with the dissent that we should be allowed to pursue a harm analysis. Dunn should be revisited. Under the existing case law, however, we cannot affirm. Intermediate appellate courts should not be fixed with blinders requiring “the entire record” and resolving any reasonable doubt about the appellant’s complicity in its absence in favor of the appellant. The special public policy considerations that insure an evenhanded imposition of the ultimate penalty in capital cases should not generate a blind standard that allows a recaptured fugitive automatic reversal because a bench discussion with prospective jurors is unavailable when he involuntarily returns to custody.