Wade U. Seastrong v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law of Bowie CountyAnnotate this Case
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
WADE U. SEASTRONG, Appellant
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 02M1345-CCL
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
Wade U. Seastrong appeals, pro se, from his conviction by a jury for the misdemeanor offense of public lewdness. The jury assessed his punishment at a $1,500.00 fine and one year's confinement in the county jail and recommended that community supervision be granted. The trial court suspended imposition of the incarceration and placed Seastrong on community supervision for a two-year period. The clerk's record contains no timely claim of indigence; thus, Seastrong is responsible for obtaining and paying for the preparation of the reporter's record. Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(b). A clerk's record was requested and paid for. No reporter's record has been filed.
We therefore review this appeal based on the record before us. Seastrong has filed a brief in which he asks this Court to reverse the trial court and enter an order of acquittal based on the clerk's record alone. He has not, however, specified any error committed by the trial court in support of his request. In his rebuttal to the State's brief (which states only that there is nothing in the appellant's brief to which it can respond), Seastrong states that the evidence cannot support a conclusion of guilt because no witness could have observed any illegal conduct due to the physical layout of the structure and the time necessary to traverse it. If we found the evidence legally insufficient to sustain a conviction, the proper remedy is to reverse the case and order that a judgment of acquittal be entered in the trial court. See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
In our review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we are required to review the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In that review, we must evaluate all of the evidence in the record, both direct and circumstantial, whether admissible or inadmissible. Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
In this case, we cannot review the evidence, because there is no reporter's record. Therefore, we cannot analyze its adequacy to support the verdict. We have also examined the clerk's record and find no error justifying reversal.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Date Submitted: April 17, 2003
Date Decided: June 26, 2003
Do Not Publish