Background
George Allen Rogers appealed his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child and his sentence of life imprisonment. The reporter’s record was originally due June 15, 2026.
After granting two extensions based on the court reporter’s caseload, the court warned that failure to file the record by August 14 could result in abatement and remand. The reporter then requested a third, 30-day extension, again citing her caseload.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the third extension request, abated the appeal, and remanded the matter to the trial court to prevent further delay and preserve the parties’ rights. It directed the trial court to determine what work remained, how much time was reasonably necessary, and whether the current reporter could finish within that period.
If the trial court determines that completion will require more than 30 days, it must arrange for a substitute reporter. The trial court must enter necessary orders and ensure that its findings are included in a supplemental clerk’s record filed with the court of appeals by September 24, 2026. If the reporter files the record before the trial court acts, she must notify that court in writing, and no further trial-court action will be required.
Key Takeaways
- Repeated workload-based extension requests do not require an appellate court to permit continued delay in filing the record.
- The trial and appellate courts share responsibility for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.
- A substitute reporter must be arranged if the current reporter cannot complete, certify, and file the record within the court-determined period of no more than 30 days.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a Texas appellate court may use abatement and remand to address an overdue reporter’s record without deciding the merits of the criminal appeal. It also places concrete oversight duties on the trial court and provides a mechanism for replacing a reporter when delay would otherwise continue.
The court did not review Rogers’s conviction or life sentence; its ruling concerned only completion of the appellate record and the orderly progression of the appeal.