Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Applicant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, requesting an out-of-time petition for discretionary review. He claimed that he was unable to file a petition because he was not provided with a complete copy of the record. At the hearing held by the trial court, the applicant received a copy of the record; however, applicant claims that the record provided to him is still not complete. This court requested briefing on the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or any statute requires that an appellant who wishes to pursue a pro se petition for discretionary review be provided a free copy of the trial record. HOLDING:Denied. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.2 deals with an indigent appellant’s request for a free copy of the appellate record. The Rule allows for the reporter who transcribes the record to be paid from the general funds of the county in which the offense was committed if the trial court finds that the appellant cannot pay for the record. However, the Rule specifies that it is applicable only to the period “within the time for perfecting the appeal.” These time limits refer only to a defendant’s right to appeal under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.02 and do not apply to discretionary review before the Court of Criminal Appeals. Unlike a defendant’s right to an initial appeal under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.02, review by this court is not a matter of right. While an appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review with this court, there is no requirement that the petition include a copy of the trial record, so failure to provide a free copy of the record to the appellant does not violate his right to file the petition. The court holds that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution or any statute or Rule requires the convicting county to provide a free copy of the trial record to an appellant for purposes of filing a pro se petition of discretionary review. OPINION:Meyers, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Keller, P.J., and Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, and Cochran, JJ., joined. Womack, J., concurred.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.