Court Opinion

ID: 9667225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:38:50.965468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:36.087283
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
The opinion of the Court states that “without a statement of facts of the trial ... we could not make the determination [required by Adams].” Slip Opinion, p. 699.1 A word about that.
Presently, through a combination of several sections in Article 40.09, V.A.C.C.P., an appellant may designate those relevant parts of proceedings shown by notes of the court reporter to have occurred in the criminal action, and cause the court reporter to transcribe them; similarly, the State may cause to be included such additional parts as it deems relevant. Article 40.09, §§ 2, 3, 4 and 5. In the Fall through specific provisions of Rule 43, Tex.R.App.P., the procedure will be even simpler and safer for all concerned.
Therefore, “a statement of facts of the trial” may not be at all essential.
*700To be recalled is that in Craven v. State, 613 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), the Court was confronting a record that did not include a transcription of notes of ‘'any proceeding. ” Id., nn. 1 and 6. Accordingly, we pointed out that “the record before us will not shed any light on the ultimate issue of prejudice to substantial rights of appellant ...” id., at 490.
Craven most assuredly does not mandate that “before an accused could complain [of error in] overruling a motion to quash the charging instrument” he must include in the record “a statement of facts of the trial.” For that matter, neither does Adams v. State, 707 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1986).
With those observations and understanding, I join the judgment of the Court.
TOM G. DAVIS, J., joins.

. All emphasis is mine throughout unless otherwise indicated.