Cho, Young Ran and Yu Mi Cho v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 5, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00532-CR

NO. 14-02-00533-CR

____________

YOUNG RAN CHO and YU MI CHO, Appellants

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th Criminal District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 902,358 and 902,359

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found Young Ran Cho guilty of kidnapping and assessed punishment at five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. A jury found Yu Mi Cho guilty of unlawful restraint and assessed punishment at two years=confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Now, both appellants complain that the trial court erred by denying their motions for new trial. The facts of this appeal are known to the parties, so we do not recite them here. Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

A trial court=s denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See Superior Packing, Inc. v. Worldwide Leasing & Fin., Inc., 880 S.W.2d 67, 71 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied). An abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial court reaches a decision that is arbitrary, unreasonable, or without reference to any guiding rules or legal principles. K-Mart Corp. v. Honeycutt, 24 S.W.3d 357, 360 (Tex. 2000). An appellate court will not substitute its decision for that of the trial court=s. Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tex. 1985).

Here, appellants are asking this Court to reverse the trial court=s denial of the motions for new trial. However, appellants have not supplied this Court with the reporter=s record from the proceedings in the trial courts.[1] Without reporter=s records, we cannot determine if the trial court conducted a hearing on the motions for new trial and what evidence and arguments the trial court considered in each case. We cannot determine whether the denials of the motions for new trial were arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to guiding rules or legal principles without the reporter=s records. See Honeycutt, 24 S.W.3d at 360. Appellants direct this Court only to portions of the clerk=s record that include copies of appellants brief in support of the motion for new trial. Attached to each brief are excerpts of the reporter s record and testimony from trial. However, [a]ffidavits and certified copies of court documentsCand certainly lettersCdo not prove themselves, and unless they are offered and admitted in evidence they cannot be considered on appeal. Webber v. State, 21 S.W.3d 726, 731 (Tex. App.CAustin 2000, pet. ref d). Without reporter=s records, we do not know if the briefs and supporting documents were admitted in evidence.[2]

In conclusion, appellants have not shown this Court that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the two motions for new trial. We overrule both of appellants= issues and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

/s/ Wanda McKee Fowler

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 5, 2003.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister, Justices Fowler and Edelman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

[1] This Court issued an order to each appellant on October 17, 2002. We informed the appellants that reporter s records had not been filed in the cases. The court reporters in the cases informed this Court that appellants had not made arrangements for payment. We then issued an order stating that we would only consider and decide issues that did not require reporter s records unless appellants, within 15 days of notice, would provide this Court with proof of payment. We did not receive notice of payment, and therefore we will only consider the issues that do not require a reporter=s record.

[2] Though without an evidence sticker, we would assume the brief and the attachments were not admitted into evidence.