Court Opinion

ID: 9768429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 06:02:31.663774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:40.782081
License: Public Domain

COUNTISS, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of Chief Justice Reynolds because I think it correctly applies Court of Criminal Appeals precedents we must follow in this problem area. I am not entirely comfortable with our decision, however, because I do not know who is at fault for this incomplete record. If the blame can be placed entirely on counsel, then considerable strength is added to Justice Boyd’s view that, under Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985), appellant’s overriding right to effective assistance of counsel has been denied. If, however, appellant was not diligent in the pursuit of his appellate rights, then he should not be allowed to play games with the system by asking us to let him start over. Appellant has the burden of demonstrating his right to relief and he has not met that burden under this silent record.
The problem before us, which occurs often, can be avoided if, as suggested in Robinson v. State, 661 S.W.2d 279, 283 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1983, no pet.) the trial court will tell the defendant at sentencing about certain basic appellate requirements. In addition to advising the defendant of his right to appeal and right to appointed counsel if indigent, the trial court should, at the very least, tell the defendant when the notice of appeal must be filed and when material to be included in the appellate record must be designated. Perhaps the Court of Criminal Appeals, by rule, or the Legislature, by statute, will some day require the giving of that information. Then we can, with assurance, tell a defendant that the incomplete record is his mistake, from which there is no relief.