Suniga, Brian, AP-77,041

Background

Appellant Brian Suniga was convicted of capital murder in Lubbock County (140th District Court) and sentenced to death; appeal pending to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Appellant filed a Designation of Record (June 27, 2014) and the Clerk’s Record and Reporter’s Record were later filed, but counsel discovered multiple alleged omissions.
Missing items identified by appellant’s appellate counsel include: the Motion to Suppress and its exhibits; the trial court’s promised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on that motion; jury notes from deliberations; CD-ROM exhibits to two motions for change of venue; an incomplete docket sheet; certain sealed filings; and juror information cards/questionnaires.
Appellant contends these omissions prevent preparation of an effective opening brief and impair appellate counsel’s duty to ensure a complete record, particularly in a capital case where reliability is constitutionally critical.
Relief sought: abate the appeal and briefing schedule; remand to the trial court to (1) prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Motion to Suppress and (2) supplement the Clerk’s Record and Reporter’s Record with the missing items (including sealed items’ identification and confidential provision of juror questionnaires).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Suniga)	Defendant's Argument (State/Clerk)	Held
Completeness of appellate record / docket sheet	Record is incomplete; docket sheet omitted many hearings and entries required by Tex. R. App. P. 34.5 and Art. 33.07; supplementation necessary.	Clerk has produced a partial “Case Summary” and some items; some matters are sealed or not located.	Motion requests supplementation/abatement; relief sought is abate and remand to complete record — no final court decision in the motion.
Missing Motion to Suppress transcript/exhibits and promised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law	The Motion to Suppress (Fourth Amendment) and the trial court’s promised findings are absent; Cullen requires trial-court findings on suppression motions upon timely request.	Clerk reported unable to locate one filing (later produced by DA per notes); court previously indicated findings would be filed after trial.	Appellant seeks order directing trial court to file Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and to supplement record with the Motion to Suppress and exhibits; motion pending before CCA.
Absent jury notes and evidence of jury communications	Reporter referenced a “First Jury Note”; no jury notes appear in Clerk’s Record — they are necessary for appellate review.	Notes may not have been preserved in the record or were handled in a manner the Clerk/reporter must clarify.	Appellant asks the Court to order production of all jury notes and any written responses; no dispositive ruling in the motion.
Sealed filings and juror questionnaires / confidential materials	Numerous sealed defense filings and juror information cards (Art. 35.29 protected) are not included; counsel needs copies (confidentially) to assess Batson or other jury-related issues.	State/Clerk may assert confidentiality/sealing; some filings’ sealed status explains omission from public Clerk’s Record.	Appellant requests Court order to provide copies of sealed defense filings and juror questionnaires to appellate counsel under confidentiality or identify sealed filings so counsel can move to unseal if needed; motion remains pending.

Key Cases Cited

Cullen v. State, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (trial court must state essential findings on a motion to suppress when timely requested)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (indigent criminal defendant’s right to transcript rooted in due process/equal protection)
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1996) (right to transcript in cases implicating fundamental rights)
Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1993) (heightened reliability concerns in capital cases)
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1976) (Eighth Amendment reliability and sentencing standards in capital cases)
Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (U.S. 1998) (emphasis on reliability in capital sentencing)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (reliability protections in capital proceedings)
In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (indigent inmate’s right to access information about transcript costs and access to records)
Newman v. State, 331 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (appellant must present the record necessary to establish relief; absent record items may doom claims)