You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Timothy Lee Barnum v. the State of Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-21-00275-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 1, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Timothy Lee Barnum's motion for a free appellate record was denied by the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas. Barnum seeks the record to support his application for habeas relief. The court noted that indigent defendants are not entitled to a free copy of the trial record for discretionary review or post-conviction habeas corpus relief, referencing relevant case law (Ex parte Trainer and In re Jones). Consequently, the court found that Barnum has no right to receive the appellate record without charge at this time.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application for Habeas Corpus Relief

Application: The court applied the principle that a request for a free appellate record to support an application for habeas relief does not entitle the petitioner to said record.

Reasoning: Barnum seeks the record to support his application for habeas relief.

Denial of Motion for Free Appellate Record

Application: The court denied the motion for a free appellate record, reinforcing the precedent that there is no entitlement to such a record under the circumstances presented.

Reasoning: Timothy Lee Barnum's motion for a free appellate record was denied by the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas.

Right to Free Appellate Record for Indigent Defendants

Application: The court determined that indigent defendants do not have the right to receive a free copy of the trial record for purposes of discretionary review or post-conviction habeas corpus relief.

Reasoning: The court noted that indigent defendants are not entitled to a free copy of the trial record for discretionary review or post-conviction habeas corpus relief, referencing relevant case law (Ex parte Trainer and In re Jones).