# Davis v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 8, 2011 · 345 S.W.3d 71

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783888

## Case

- **Full name:** Jason Shane DAVIS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 8, 2011
- **Citations:** 345 S.W.3d 71; 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 797; 2011 WL 2200812
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** Price, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783888

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the defendant did not request a court reporter under 52.046(a) and, regardless, “even if Rule 13.1 does impose a preliminary burden on the trial court to ensure the presence of a court reporter at all proceedings, our case law also imposes an additional, independen…
- noting that the defendant did not request a court reporter under 52.046(a
- noting that appealing party has an obligation to make a record demonstrating that error occurred in the trial court, including an obligation to object that the court reporter was not present, to preserve any error for appeal
- stating that appealing party must “make a record demonstrating that error occurred in the trial court”

## Opinion text

JOHNSON, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
From the record, it appears that, four and one-half months after appellant arrived in Dallas County after extradition pursuant to IADA and with the IADA clock ticking, the state chose to reindict appellant and to request a continuance because of that reindictment. The trial court granted the state’s request, thereby pushing the beginning of the trial well past the time limits of the IADA.
In this Court, the state complains that the court of appeals erroneously placed on the trial court the burden of making a record of its reasoning in finding good cause that justified a second continuance. Because the second state continuance appears to have been granted because of a new indictment, determining whether the allegations in the new indictment were sufficiently different so as to necessarily require reworking of the state’s case requires comparison of the two indictments. The burden of making a record that per *79 mits such a comparison rests with the party who opposed the continuance — appellant. The record includes only the second indictment. Appellant did not carry his burden of providing an adequate record on appeal and so must bear the consequences.
I therefore join the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783888. Public record. Not legal advice.