Durrough v. State
| Decision Date | 29 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 805-84,805-84 |
| Citation | 693 S.W.2d 404 |
| Parties | Fred T. DURROUGH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Chrysanthe A. Lambros, San Antonio, for appellant.
Sam D. Millsap, Jr., Dist. Atty. & E. Dickinson Ryman, Robert Arellano, Alan E. Battaglia & Edward F. Shaughnessy, III, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in the Texas Department of Corrections. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, Durrough v. State, 672 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi, 1984). Venue was changed from Bexar County to Nueces County. The Appellant has filed a Petition for Discretionary Review.
In the Court of Appeals, the Appellant moved to have two exhibits which had been omitted from the appellate record forwarded to the Court of Appeals, included in the appellate record before the Court below. Although the Appellant's motion was granted, the Court of Appeals did not consider the exhibits due to Appellant's failure to comply with Article 40.09, Sec. 7, V.A.C.C.P. Appellant's counsel tendered the omitted exhibits, herself, to the Court of Appeals. The Appellant complains of the failure of the Court below to consider the omitted exhibits in consideration of his ground of error below contesting the identification made by the deceased victim's wife who now is also deceased, in his Petition for Discretionary Review.
From an examination of the record, it appears the omitted exhibits were part of the prepared record in this cause and for unknown reasons were not physically forwarded along with the record to the Court of Appeals. Exhibits are part of the appellate record which shall be included, whether designated or not. Article 40.09, Sec. 1, V.A.C.C.P. Therefore, pursuant to the authority conferred on this Court by Articles 44.37 and 44.45(b), V.A.C.C.P., and Rule 304(k) (Tex.Cr.App. Rules), Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review is granted, and this cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Supreme Judicial District for reconsideration of Appellant's ground of error below including the omitted exhibits. This Court expresses no opinion with respect to the ultimate disposition of the ground of error. All other grounds for review presented in Appellant's Petition for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodson v. State, 13-88-061-CR
...memory to have faded. See Durrough v. State, 672 S.W.2d 860, 868 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1984), remanded on other grounds, 693 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (where four months did not create a substantial likelihood of By his fifth point of error, appellant complains that the trial court......
-
Gomez v. State
...destroyed, the appellant is entitled to a new trial. TEX.R.APP.P. 50(e). Exhibits are part of the appellate record. Durrough v. State, 693 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). They are not, however, part of the court reporter's notes. The disposition of appellant's first point of error, the......
-
Melendez v. State
...had no doubt that "[e]xibits are part of the appellate record which shall be included, whether designated or not." Durrough v. State, 693 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). 3 It is noteworthy that former article 40.09, paragraph 1, expressly directed the clerk of the trial court to include in th......
-
Loserth v. State
...842, 849 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); Durrough v. State, 672 S.W.2d 860, 870 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 693 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). Although Devlin testified that he could have made the in-court identification without the photograph, that statement does not con......