Order entered May 2, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00362-CR
No. 05-18-00363-CR
No. 05-18-00364-CR
JOHN F. SEAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-44837-P, F17-44838-P & F17-44846-P
ORDER
Before the Court are pro se appellant’s April 26, 2019 motion seeking to supplement the
clerk’s records with copies of a motion to suppress evidence and the reporter’s record with a
copy of Defense Exhibit 1, April 25, 2019 “first” motion for extension of time to file his brief,
and April 22, 2019 motion to compel trial court counsel to “surrender the court case/work file
she created in representing the Appellant in trial court.”
In his motion to supplement the record, appellant alleges trial counsel filed a motion to
suppress during the hearing on the motion to suppress held on March 2, 2018. Nothing in the
record shows counsel filed such a document. Instead, the record shows appellant filed motions
to suppress evidence on October 2, 2017 and February 15, 2018.
The motion to suppress appellant filed on October 2, 2017 references the cause numbers
of appellant’s cases and was intended to apply to all of them. The three clerk’s records in these
appeals all contain a copy of appellant’s October 2, 2017 motion to suppress evidence.
Similarly, the motion to suppress appellant filed on February 15, 2018 purports to reference all
of the cause numbers of appellant’s cases and apply to all of them. However, the motion
incorrectly lists the trial court cause number for cause number 05-18-00362-CR as “F1744836”
rather than “F17-44837.” Because the February 15, 2018 motion to suppress was not filed in
cause no. 05-18-00362-CR, the February 15, 2018 motion to suppress appears only in the clerk’s
records in cause nos. 05-18-00363-CR and 05-18-00364-CR.
A review of the reporter’s record from the March 2, 2018 hearing on the motion to
suppress shows Defense Exhibit 1 was used to cross-examine a State’s witness, but it was not
admitted into evidence.
We conclude the appellate record is complete as filed. Accordingly, appellant’s motion
to supplement the record is DENIED.
Regarding the motion to compel, by order dated December 3, 2018, the Court granted
appellant permission to represent himself and ordered his brief filed within thirty days. On
January 25, 2019 appellant filed a letter explaining that he was unable to file a brief because he
had been arrested in Arizona for violating parole and he had lost access to all of his legal
materials. By order entered February 6, 2019, the Court granted appellant an extension and
ordered his brief filed within thirty days. On February 21, 2019, appellant requested a second
extension. By order entered February 27, 2019, the Court granted appellant thirty days to file his
brief. On March 27, 2019, appellant filed a motion seeking a third extension on his brief and a
motion seeking to compel his former appellate counsel to “surrender a copy of entire appellate
–2–
record.” By order dated April 1, 2019, the Court denied the motion to compel, but ordered the
Clerk of the Court to furnish appellant with a copy of the appellate record. The April 1, 2019
order also ordered appellant to file his brief within thirty days and cautioned him that the Court
would not grant any further extensions absent extenuating circumstances. Under the Court’s
order, appellant’s brief is due May 1, 2019.
Appellant’s motion to compel trial counsel to surrender her case file is untimely.
Appellant’s brief is due after three extensions. He has shown no reason why he needs additional
materials from his former trial counsel. This Court’s review is limited to the appellate record
which the Clerk of the Court has provided to appellant. The Court DENIES appellant’s motion
to compel trial counsel to surrender her case file.
Regarding appellant’s motion to extend the time to file his brief, we note that the motion
appears to be have been written in February 2019, was filed with the district clerk on April 3,
2019, and not filed with the Clerk of this Court until April 25, 2019. It is a duplicate of
appellant’s February 21, 2019 motion for extension. Because the Court already granted relief on
the motion in its February 27, 2019 order, we DENY AS MOOT appellant’s April 25, 2019
motion for extension of time to file his brief.
Appellant’s brief is overdue. In the interest of justice, the Court extends the time to file
appellant’s brief until May 31, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by May 31, 2019, the Court
will order these cases submitted without appellant’s brief.
/s/ LANA MYERS
JUSTICE
–3–