REBECCA JEAN CANN V. THE STATE OF TEXAS (original)

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 
OF TEXAS 

No. PD-1433-09
REBECCA JEAN CANN, Appellant 
V. 
THE STATE OF TEXAS 
ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 
KLEBERG COUNTY 
Per curiam. 
O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to 180 days confinement. Sentence was suspended and Appellant was placed on community supervision for eighteen months and fined $500 and court costs. Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Upon receiving the Anders brief, the court of appeals reviewed the entire record, counsel's brief, and Appellant's pro se brief, and found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment. Cann v. State, No. 13-06-00535-CR (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi, August 26, 2009). Appellant petitioned this Court for discretionary review.

Appellant's trial was recorded on audiotape. The court of appeals's opinion indicates that the court reviewed the entire record. In her PDR, Appellant claims that portions of the trial are missing from the record. The tape-recorded record forwarded to this Court by the court of appeals ends early on the second day of trial and does not contain a complete record of the trial. It is unclear if portions of the trial proceedings were not recorded or if the court of appeals simply received an incomplete copy of the record.

If a complete record of the trial is available, the court of appeals can conduct the independent review required by Anders. If not, the court will have to determine if the lack of a complete trial record is an arguable issue that would support an appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we grant Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand for that court to determine the status and availability of the complete trial record and the effect, if any, the record has on the court's reasoning and analysis in this case.

En banc

Delivered: March 17, 2010

Do not publish