Christopher Lockhart v. State
Christopher Lockhart v. State
Opinion
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-08-00076-CR
Christopher Lockhart,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 13th District Court
Navarro County, Texas
Trial Court No. 31198
ABATEMENT ORDER
A portion of the reporter’s record is overdue, and despite several notices to the court reporter to file the record, it has not been filed.[1] The court reporter has moved to Kansas. Therefore, to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties’ rights, we abate this cause to the trial court for a hearing to determine: (1) why the remainder of the reporter’s record has not been filed; and (2) what steps must be taken to ensure that it is filed within a reasonable period of time after the hearing. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(a)(2).
The trial court shall conduct the hearing within 30 days after the date of this order. The trial court clerk and the court reporter shall file supplemental records within 45 days after the date of this order. See Fewins v. State, 170 S.W.3d 293, 296-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, order) (per curiam).
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Order issued and filed November 26, 2008
Do not publish
[CR25]
[1] A reporter’s record of a pretrial hearing on Lockhart’s motion to suppress has been filed. However, a different court reporter made a record of Lockhart’s trial.
for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment denying the petition for writ of mandamus. A separate opinion will not issue. He notes, however, that the majority issued an order dated March 31, 2008 in which a response was requested. The order includes the statement “Chief Justice Gray not participating.” This statement is erroneous. Rather than order a response I voted as follows: “Saddle Brook West Apartments seeks relief of an order granting a stay for eight months under the Service Members Civil Relief Act. The stay was granted four months ago. There are four months remaining in the stay as ordered. I would deny the petition for mandamus because of Saddle Brook’s delay in seeking relief. Even if the Act does not apply, I cannot say the trial court abused his discretion in granting the requested delay.”)
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed May 21, 2008
[OT06]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.