Court Opinion

ID: 9662043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:57:51.594072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:36.111147
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the disposition of this case on statutory grounds, but I do not join the holding that the constitutional rights of indigent defendants are implicated today.
While it is true, as the majority says, that the trial court has a constitutional duty to provide an indigent defendant with as adequate a record on appeal as that which is available to the monied defendant, Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, the unavailability of an adequate record in this case stems not from appellant’s financial condition, but from the absence of the court reporter’s notes to prepare such a record.
When the absence of an adequate record is due to circumstances other than the defendant’s indigency, as is the case here, the consequences of such a condition should be the same whether the defendant is indigent or not. In Rhoda v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 514 S.W.2d 937, the Court wrote:
• “The right of an indigent appellant to a free statement of facts is independent of the, requirement that a statement of facts, free or otherwise, be requested at the appropriate stage of the appellate process. If that requirement not be met, the right to have it included in the record on appeal is waived.”
The focus of the decision in this case should likewise be on the cause for the absence of a statement of facts in the record on appeal. In Hartgraves v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 888, a reversal was required on a record that showed:
“. . . without any fault of his own or that of his counsel, the appellant has been deprived of a statement of facts relating to the hearing of his motion for a new trial, if not a statement of facts on the trial.”
In Hilliard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 401 S.W.2d 814, on the other hand, it was held that a delay of almost eight months after notice of appeal before a pauper’s oath for a free statement of facts from the court reporter’s notes was requested, constituted a lack of necessary diligence on the defendant’s part, and the denial of that form of a statement of facts was not error.1
*553In this case a statement of facts prepared by the court reporter pursuant to Art. 40.-09(3-5), supra, was unavailable to appellant, not due to any lack of diligence on his part, as in Rhoda and Hilliard, supra, but because the court reporter had left the State and was beyond the trial court’s power to compel production. See Guillory v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 557 S.W.2d 118. In the absence of a statutory alternative for preparing an adequate record for appeal that may be imposed (contrast with Art. 40.09(14), supra) in such circumstances, the only remedy for a defendant who is denied an adequate record for presenting his appeal is reversal. Ex parte Mays, Tex.Cr.App., 510 S.W.2d 606, and authorities cited there. This result is required irrespective of the defendant’s financial status (although indigent status may facilitate proof of no want of diligence). The taking of notes by the court reporter and the reporting of them for the appeal record on request are mandatory whether or not the defendant is indigent (Art. 40.09(4, 5), supra), and the alternative agreed statement is at his option, likewise whether or not he is indigent (Art. 40.-09(14), supra). Thus, the disposition of this case is controlled by considerations, independent of appellant’s financial status, that result from the statutory scheme for appeal of criminal cases and preparation of the record under Art. 40.09, supra.
On this basis I concur in the judgment.
PHILLIPS, W. C. DAVIS and CLINTON, JJ., join this concurrence.

. On denial of a statement of facts prepared by the court reporter in Hilliard, supra, an alternative form of statement of facts was submitted. Pursuant to Art. 759a, Sec. I.E., V.A.C.C.P. (1925, as amended; see 5 V.A.C.C.P. (1979) at 208) the trial court prepared a statement of facts after it was ascertained that the court reporter’s notes had been lost and that appellant’s counsel and the state could not prepare an agreed statement of facts. Under the current version of Art. 40.09, V.A.C.C.P. (successor to Art. 759a, supra), the trial court has no corresponding power to prepare a statement of facts when the parties are unable to agree upon one under subdivision 14 of that article.