The opinion
GUPTON, Judge
(concurring).
I concur with the majority opinion and the results reached. Article 40.09, Sec. 7, V.A.C.C.P., is silent as to the instant situation. A majority of this Court held in Guzman v. State, 521 S.W.2d 267 , 271:
“The question succinctly put is whether the State waived the right to have designated matters included in the record by failure to object within the prescribed fifteen day period after notice of completion of the record was mailed. We think not.”
Heck v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 507 S.W.2d 737 , involved a situation concerning a supplemental approval of the record. The record therein was approved without a statement of facts and without objection. Six months later a statement of facts was filed and approved. This Court held:
*31 “We find the trial court’s order of July 23, 1973, directing that the transcription of the court reporter’s notes be included in the record on appeal done long before the appellate record was transmitted to this Court constituted a supplemental approval of the record.”
Guzman, supra, further reveals that although Heck, supra, deals with a supplemental approval of the statement of facts rather than matters designated for inclusion in the record, both situations are controlled by the same rationale. I feel that the situation at bar is controlled by the same rationale.
I quote further from Guzman, supra:
“Both Article 40.09, Sec. 4 and Sec. 7, clearly indicate the legislative intent that the trial judge be afforded limited discretion in these records, so that the statement of facts and the record shall ‘speak the truth.’ ”
A period of four months lapsed from the date the trial judge held the evidentiary hearing until this appeal was filed with this Court. The trial judge had the authority to include in the appellate record the additional pages of the statement of facts.
I concur with the majority opinion.
ROBERTS, J., joins.