Opinion
13-23-00121-CR
11-13-2023
CORINA LAM LOPEZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2 (b).
On appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas.
Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina
ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTER'S RECORD
Per Curiam
On March 21, 2023, appellant Corina Lam Lopez filed a notice of appeal from an order denying her motion for post-conviction DNA testing. On July 19, 2023, the Court granted the State's "Motion to Supplement the Reporter's Record." The State's request identified the following items for supplementation:
1. All video statements from co-defendant George Garza's trial, including State's Exhibits 81, 82, and 84.
2. State's Exhibit 83 from George Garza's trial.
3. All video statements from Lopez's trial, including Defense Exhibit 1.
4. All exhibits and arguments in State's Answer to Defendant's Motion for DNA Testing filed on April 25, 2022.
5. All exhibits and arguments in State's 1st Supplement to Her Answer to Defendant's Motion for DNA Testing filed on April 26, 2022.
6. All exhibits and arguments in State's Answer to Defendant's Renewed Motion for DNA Testing filed on January 9, 2023.
7. All exhibits and arguments in 1st Amended State's Answer to Defendant's Renewed Motion for DNA Testing filed on January 9, 2023.
To date, the reporter's record has not been supplemented with any of these items. Based on correspondence we have received from the court reporter and the State, there appears to be some confusion about whether it is the reporter's responsibility to supplement the record. To be clear, trial exhibits are part of the reporter's record, not the clerk's record. Compare Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(a) with id. R. 34.6(a)(1). Accordingly, it is the court reporter's responsibility to supplement the reporter's record with the trial exhibits identified in the State's request. See id. R. 34.6(a)(1).
However, we have determined that only some of the items the State requested need to be supplemented. The items identified in numbers 4-7 of the State's request were already included in the clerk's record, and thus, there is no need to reproduce them. Only the trial exhibits listed in numbers 1-3 of the State's request are missing from the appellate record and should be supplemented. The court reporter is hereby ORDERED to file a supplemental reporter's record with this Court no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 30, 2023. No further motions for extension of time to supplement the record will be entertained by the Court.
There also seems to be confusion about the extent of our July 19 order. Contrary to the State's representations, the State's motion to supplement the reporter's record did not request Lopez's and Garza's trial transcripts. Consequently, our order granting the State's motion does not cover these items. Furthermore, these transcripts have not otherwise been filed with the Court. If a party is uncertain about the contents of the appellate record, they need only consult the attorney portal. To the extent the State believes these items are necessary to the disposition of this appeal, the State will need to seek further leave of this Court. However, after reviewing the voluminous filings by the parties in the underlying proceeding, it appears that portions of these transcripts have already been included in the clerk's record. Therefore, before seeking any such leave, the State should carefully review the appellate record to determine whether further delay in this appeal is warranted.