|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00043-CR
______________________________
CALVIN WAYNE BURNHAM, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 123rd Judicial District Court
Panola County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2005-C-0006
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Calvin Wayne Burnham appeals from his convictions by the trial court on four charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child and four charges of indecency with a child. Burnham has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all of his appeals.[1] He argues that the trial court committed reversible error in considering evidence from a previous revocation hearing when granting the State’s second amended motion to adjudicate guilt and in admitting the results of a polygraph examination. Burnham also complains that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he violated any conditions of his community supervision.
We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Burnham’s appeal in cause number 06-10-00038-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that reversible error has not been shown in this case.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: December 14, 2010
Date Decided: December 15, 2010
Do Not Publish
[1]Burnham appeals from four convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and four convictions for indecency with a child, cause numbers 06-10-00038-CR through 06-10-00045-CR.
title="">[3]
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: January 6, 2011
Date Decided: January 7, 2011
[1]An opinion in this matter had been previously released in almost the same form as this, but withdrawn November 23, 2010, after receiving the Moores’ motion for rehearing based on Rule 37.3(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring notice and reasonable opportunity to cure the failure to request or file the reporter’s record necessary for the disposition of this appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). On that date, we sent the official notice contemplated by Rule 37.3(c), notifying the Moores that “no request was ever made of a court reporter to prepare a record as required by Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(b)(1), and thus appellants did not pay the reporter’s fee or make satisfactory arrangement to pay as required by Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(b)(3).” Our letter stated, “If a reporter’s record is to be filed, appellants must pay for its preparation or make adequate arrangements for its purchase and preparation, and this Court must be informed that such has occurred within twenty days of the date of this letter. If such arrangements are not made, then the case will be immediately submitted to the Court and decided based on the briefing previously provided, without oral argument, . . . and based solely upon the clerk’s record.” The Moores were directed to respond on or before December 13, 2010.
Although it appears that the Moores made a preliminary inquiry of the clerk of the trial court as to the cost of the reporter’s record, despite our explicit warning and directions, we have no indication of any attempt by them to contact the reporter to obtain the required record required by Rule 35.3(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Over forty-five days have now elapsed since the date of our Rule 37.3(c) notice and opportunity to cure letter without an indication of compliance. Because the Moores have not complied with our Rule 37.3(c) letter, the original opinion (with only slight revision) is being reissued.
[2]The Moores also argued that the court erred in “first refus[ing] to allow [these documents] to be filed and then allowing filing.”
[3]Moreover, “[a]n appellant has the burden to bring forth sufficient record and authority to support reversible error.” Rosenblatt v. City of Houston, 31 S.W.3d 399, 407 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied). A point of error not supported by authority is waived. Id. (citing Trenholm v. Ratcliff, 646 S.W.2d 927, 934 (Tex. 1983)). The only cited authority in the Moores’ brief is the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.