in Re Michael Lynn Eaton
12-15-00118-CR
Tex. App.May 29, 2015Background
- Relator Michael Lynn Eaton filed an application for writ of mandamus in the 12th Court of Appeals seeking trial court records and court reporter transcripts needed to pursue an appeal under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. § 11.07.
- Eaton alleges respondents (115th District Court officials, district clerk, and court reporter) failed to comply with TRAP 20.1–20.2 by not holding required hearings on his motions and by not ordering transcripts when he showed inability to pay.
- Eaton claims he filed motions in the trial court on 7-8-2013 and 1-8-2015 and a mandamus in the trial court on 12-13-2013; he contends none resulted in a hearing or selection of a method to provide the record for appeal.
- He asserts the trial court and respondents violated TRAP 20.2 (motion/affidavit and hearing requirement and obligation to order reporter to transcribe if indigency is found) and that the failures implicate his constitutional rights under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.
- Eaton represents that he lacks resources to pay for copies or make duplicates and therefore requests the appellate record be furnished without charge or funded from county central funds as required by TRAP 20.2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court and related officials violated TRAP 20.2 by failing to hold a hearing on Eaton’s indigency motions | Eaton: Motions filed showing inability to pay required a hearing and, if indigent, an order requiring reporter to transcribe and county to pay | Respondents: (not detailed in record) likely contend no duty was breached or procedural grounds excuse inaction | Eaton seeks mandamus to compel compliance; record alleges failure but decision not provided in provided text |
| Whether mandamus is the proper vehicle to obtain transcripts/record for an appeal under § 11.07 | Eaton: Mandamus is appropriate to compel trial court to perform mandatory duties under TRAP 20.2 so he can pursue § 11.07 appeal | Respondents: (not detailed) may argue alternative remedies or that requirements were met | Eaton invokes mandamus; court filing seeks relief, outcome not included in excerpt |
| Whether county central funds must pay court reporter when appellant is indigent | Eaton: TRAP 20.2 requires reporter be paid from county central funds when court finds indigency | Respondents: (not detailed) may dispute factual indigency or procedure | Eaton requests order enforcing TRAP 20.2; excerpt asserts respondents failed to follow rule |
| Whether respondents’ alleged delay/inaction violated Eaton’s constitutional rights | Eaton: Delay/inaction denied access to appellate process and due process/free speech rights | Respondents: (not detailed) likely deny constitutional violation or assert lack of prejudice | Eaton frames relief as necessary to vindicate constitutional rights; decision not contained in excerpt |
Key Cases Cited
- Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. 1980) (discusses appellate record/transcript obligations)
- Billie v. State, 605 S.W.2d 558 (Tenn. 1980) (addressing appellate procedure issues)
- Dallas County v. Sweitzer, 881 S.W.2d 757 (Tex. App. 1994) (county obligations regarding court funds and procedures)
- Hornsby v. State, 65 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (criminal procedure and appellate rights)
- In re Lee Children, 36 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. App. 2001) (procedural appellate matters)
- Lawson v. State, 896 S.W.2d 828 (Tex. App. 1995) (appellate record/transcript issues)
- McFatridge v. State, 309 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (postconviction appellate practice)
- Sparkman v. State, 55 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (transcript and appellate rights)
- Turner v. State, 71 S.W.3d 928 (Tex. App. 2001) (appellate procedure and record designation)
- White v. State, 828 S.W.2d 15 (Tex. App. 1990) (procedural appellate requirements)