Pike v. State, s. 1325-88
| Decision Date | 07 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | 1326-88,Nos. 1325-88,s. 1325-88 |
| Citation | 772 S.W.2d 130 |
| Parties | James Nelson PIKE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Danny D. Burns, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Dan M. Boulware, Dist. Atty., Lisa K. Maddux, Asst. Dist. Atty., Cleburne, 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 by a jury for engaging in organized criminal activity by unlawful manufacture and delivery of methamphetamine, aggravated. The jury set punishment at 99 years confinement and $15,000.00 fine for both cases. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. Pike v. State, 758 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.App.--Waco 1988). Appellant filed one petition for discretionary review in which he raised three grounds for review that pertain to both cases.
In his second ground for review, appellant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in overruling his claim that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of parole contained on a tape recorded statement obtained by an undercover narcotics officer. The Court of Appeals refused to consider the point since the tape was not included in the record. Appellant contends that supplementation should have been permitted since his designation of record included all exhibits offered in the case and since he moved for supplementation as soon as the omission was discovered.
Under the instant circumstances, the court of appeals should have permitted supplementation of the record to include the transcription of the tape or the tape, as requested in the designation of record. See Jones v. State, 742 S.W.2d 398 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), and Durrough v. State, 693 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). See also Tex.R.App.Pro. 51(d). Therefore, in the exercise of our supervisory power and without expressing an opinion on the merits of appellant's claim, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for supplementation to include the tape, and for reconsideration of appellant's point of error below. We make no ruling on appellant's other grounds for review at this time.
McCORMICK, P.J., believing that the Court of Appeals correctly exercised its discretion pursuant to Tex.R.App.Pro. 55 and 50(d), dissents to the action the majority takes.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Longoria v. State
...absence at the scene of the crime did not absolve him of criminal liability under section 7.02(b)), vacated on other grounds, 772 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). Further, although the charge in Blansett apparently required that the jury find the defendant was present at the scene in order t......
-
Ortiz v. State
...failed to include an exhibit in the appellate record); Pike v. State, 758 S.W.2d 357, 365 (Tex.App.-Waco 1988), vacated, 772 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (neither tape recording of conversation between appellant and undercover officer nor transcription was part of record on appeal). 4. Th......
-
Rios v. State
...the majority and subsequently notify the parties that they are entitled to request supplementation of the record. See Pike v. State, 772 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). I concur with the majority opinion on the condition that appellant be allowed to supplement the record with the missing vo......
-
McLaren v. State
...241. 16. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 20.01(2) (Vernon 1994). 17. 758 S.W.2d 357, 362 (Tex. App.--Waco 1988), vacated and remanded, 772 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (remanding to court of appeals for consideration of supplemental record), 788 S.W.2d 43 (Tex. App.--Waco 1990, pet. ref'd). 18. I......