Michael Cox v. State ( 2006 )

NO. 07-06-0203-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
______________________________
MICHAEL A. COX,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 92-415-137; HON. BRADLEY UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Michael A. Cox (appellant) appeals from an order denying his request to obtain
records purportedly held by the district clerk and pertaining to his 1992 criminal prosecution
and conviction. According to his appellate brief, he “needs the statement of facts and oral
recording of final sentencing and the clerks record to prove” that “the state is not living up
to the plea bargain of appellant.” We affirm the order of the trial court.
Background
Through a written document entitled “Motion for Transcripts,” Cox asked the trial
court to provide him various records pertaining to the 1992 conviction. Included in the
request were copies of “all transcripts, written and oral” including “Grand Jury deliberations
to handing down indictment, to final sentencing in plea bargain.” So too did he seek an
order directing the district attorney’s office to “turn over any transcripts or motions they may
have in their record program or archives, to the district clerk of the 99th district court in
cause no. 92-415-137, so they may be forwarded to the defendant.” Other motions
wherein he sought exhibits and a subpoena for “police video of store theft and police
report” were also filed. These requests were denied, via written order, by the trial court on
May 23, 2006. Cox then appealed.
Analysis
Appellant contends that he is entitled to a free record and cites us to Griffin v.
Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S. Ct. 585, 100 L. Ed. 891 (1956) in support of his contention.
However, we find his reliance on Griffin misplaced. There, Griffin sought records to
effectuate the prosecution of a direct appeal from his conviction. Cox does not want the
records for that purpose here. Indeed, the time to initiate a direct appeal expired over a
decade ago. Rather, he wants them to collaterally attack his conviction. Griffin and its
holding does not encompass that circumstance. Rather, §552.028 of the Texas
Government Code does.
According to §552.028, “a governmental body is not required to accept or comply
with a request for information from . . . an individual who is imprisoned or confined in a
2
correctional facility. . . .” TEX . GOV’T CODE ANN . §552.028 (Vernon 2004). So, because the
record illustrates that appellant is a prison inmate, statute authorized the trial court to deny
his request. See Harrison v. Vance, 34 S.W.3d 660, 663 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2000, no pet.)
(holding that disclosure of information is discretionary when that information is requested
by an individual imprisoned or confined in a correctional facility); see also Wright v. Curry,
No. 04-10304, WL 2977437(5th Cir. December 17, 2004) (not designated for publication)
(holding that a state prison inmate was not entitled to copies of the transcripts and records
from his state court criminal case under the Texas Open Records Act, nor did he have a
right to a free copy of records from his state criminal case to “search for possible error in
order to file a petition for collateral relief at some future date.”)
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.1
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Publish.
1
W e conclude that oral argument would not significantly aid this co urt in determ ining the appeal.
Thus, we waive ora l arg um ent. To expedite disposition of this case and given the issues involved and the
clarity of the law addressing them, the court also invokes Texas Rule of App ellate Procedure 2, su spends Ru le
39.9, and submits the cause for disposition on even date.
3