No. 05-06-00727-CR.
December 6, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. MC05-R0009-D.
Before Justices BRIDGES, FITZGERALD, and LANG.
Opinion By Justice FITZGERALD.
John Mark McKenzie appeals the County Criminal Court of Appeals' judgment affirming his conviction by the Rowlett Municipal Court of Record for speeding. In two issues, McKenzie complains the trial court erroneously (1) failed to inform McKenzie of his right to have a record of the proceedings made, and (2) failed to require appropriate production by the State of exculpatory or mitigating evidence. Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. We affirm the judgment of the County Criminal Court of Appeals.
Failure to Request Record of Proceedings
In his first issue, McKenzie complains that the trial court failed to notify him of his right to have the proceedings recorded. The government code states that in municipal courts, a recording of testimony in a proceeding need not be made "unless the judge or one of the parties requests a record." Tex. Gov't Code § 30.00010(c). Moreover, the appellant must pay for the reporter's record. Id. § 30.00019(b). The fact that McKenzie proceeded in the trial court pro se does not alter his burden in this regard. See Green v. Kaposta, 152 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) ("A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure."). McKenzie was not entitled to special notice of the law on account of his pro se status. The failure to bring forward a record of the proceedings below was his own error, not the trial court's. We decide McKenzie's first issue against him. Discovery Complaints
In his second issue, McKenzie complains that he was denied discovery of exculpatory or mitigating materials. He complains of three specific requests that were not complied with by the State. Each request involves the radar system used by police in stopping and citing McKenzie for speeding: (1) the correct make and model of the radar system used; (2) the testifying officer's current radar training certificate; and (3) the shift logs detailing how the radar device was initialized at the beginning of the shift during which McKenzie's citation was issued. The State responds that it twice produced to McKenzie the correct make and model of the radar system, and that no training certificate or shift logs existed. The clerk's record does show the State's production of the make-and-model information. To the extent the existence of the other documents might have been established through the officer's testimony, that testimony is not before us. We conclude the record before us does not support a conclusion that the trial court failed to require production of any existing exculpatory or mitigating evidence. We decide this issue against McKenzie as well. We affirm the judgment of the County Criminal Court of Appeals.