Chance Wade Brandt v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-91-163-CR

CHANCE WADE BRANDT,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 90-1104-C

OPINION ON REHEARING

Simultaneous with the filing of his motion for rehearing, Brandt filed a motion to supplement the record after submission. By his motion to supplement, Brandt seeks to now place into the record the exhibits originally omitted from the statement of facts. The import of the requested supplementation is to cure his waived complaint regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. In our opinion on original submission this court held that, in the absence of all or a part of the statement of facts, it is presumed on appeal that sufficient evidence was produced to support the findings of the jury and the judgment of the trial court. Hence, on motion for rehearing, Brandt now urges this court to reconsider the sufficiency points.

We recognize that Rule 55 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure grants this court wide discretion to supplement the statement of facts so as to include omitted matter. // However, such discretion should not be exercised, in the absence of some unusual circumstances, so as to permit new material to be filed after the appellate court has written its opinion and rendered its judgment. // Such action would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of Rules 54(b) (setting forth the appellate timetable) and 50(d) (placing the burden on the appellant to see that a sufficient record is presented to show error requiring reversal) and would interfere with the orderly administration of justice. //

We hold, as did the court in Guilder, that "unawareness" of the omission of exhibits from the statement of facts does not constitute "some unusual circumstance." // Consequently, we deny Brandt's motion to supplement the record.

We deny Brandt's motion for rehearing.

BOBBY L. CUMMINGS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Motion for rehearing denied

Opinion delivered and filed October 7, 1992.

Do not publish