Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

Cody Lee Cochran v. the State of Texas

Docket 07-25-00301-CR

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealRemanded
Filed
Jurisdiction
Texas
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
Type
Lead Opinion
Disposition
Remanded
Docket
07-25-00301-CR

Appeal from convictions in the 223rd District Court (Gray County) where the reporter's record is missing encrypted exhibits needed for review.

Summary

The Court of Appeals (Seventh District) ordered the appeal of Cody Lee Cochran abated and the case remanded because the reporter's record lacks three State exhibits (22, 23, 24) that are encrypted by the FBI and unreadable without special software. The court directed the trial court to obtain accessible, reviewable copies of those exhibits and to have the court reporter file them with the appellate clerk by May 28, 2026. If the State cannot provide usable copies, the trial court must hold a hearing under the appellate rule to determine whether the exhibits are functionally lost or destroyed and make written findings for the supplemental record.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the appellate record is sufficiently complete for meaningful review when key exhibits are encrypted and inaccessible.
  • Whether the trial court must produce accessible, reviewable copies of encrypted exhibits for the appellate court and appellant.
  • What procedures apply if the State cannot produce accessible versions of the exhibits (i.e., whether a hearing under the appellate rule to determine if exhibits are lost/destroyed is required).

Court's Reasoning

The court found the record incomplete because State's Exhibits 22–24 are encrypted by the FBI and cannot be accessed without specialized software, preventing meaningful appellate review. To cure the defect, the trial court must obtain and file accessible copies so the exhibits can be examined by the parties and the court. If the State cannot produce accessible versions, the trial court must follow the appellate rule and hold a hearing to determine whether the exhibits are functionally lost or destroyed and enter findings for the appellate record.

Authorities Cited

  • Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 34.6(f)
  • Herrera v. StateNo. 13-22-00352-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 2857 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 25, 2024, no pet.)
  • Mendoza v. StateNo. 07-14-00034-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6485 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 16, 2014, no pet.)

Parties

Appellant
Cody Lee Cochran
Appellee
The State of Texas
Judge
Hon. Phil N. Vanderpool

Key Dates

Decision date
2026-04-28
Deadline to file accessible exhibits/supplemental record
2026-05-28

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    For the State — produce accessible exhibits

    Provide de-encrypted or otherwise accessible, reviewable copies of State's Exhibits 22–24 to the trial court and ensure the court reporter files them with the appellate clerk by 2026-05-28.

  2. 2

    If exhibits cannot be produced — hold Rule 34.6(f) hearing

    The trial court should conduct a hearing to determine whether the exhibits are functionally lost or destroyed and issue written findings to be included in the supplemental record by 2026-05-28.

  3. 3

    For the appellant — monitor compliance and consult counsel

    Confirm the trial court obtains the accessible exhibits or findings and, if necessary, move for further relief or preservation of appellate issues with assistance from counsel.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?
The court paused (abated) the appeal and sent the case back to the trial court because three exhibits in the record are encrypted and unreadable to the parties and the appellate court.
Who is affected by this order?
Appellant Cody Lee Cochran, the State, the trial court, and the court reporter are directly affected because they must produce accessible copies or conduct a hearing to resolve the missing-exhibit issue.
What happens next?
The trial court must require the State to provide accessible, reviewable copies of the encrypted exhibits or, if that is not possible, hold a hearing to determine whether the exhibits are functionally lost or destroyed and make written findings.
Can this order be appealed?
This order is an interim procedural order resolving the completeness of the appellate record; the underlying appeal will continue after the trial court complies, and those compliance matters can be challenged through the appellate process as appropriate.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                       No. 07-25-00298-CR
                                       No. 07-25-00299-CR
                                       No. 07-25-00300-CR
                                       No. 07-25-00301-CR
                                       No. 07-25-00302-CR

                           CODY LEE COCHRAN, APPELLANT

                                                V.

                           THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                           On Appeal from the 223rd District Court
                                     Gray County, Texas
                    Trial Court Nos. 11985, 11986, 11987, 11988, & 12811
                           Honorable Phil N. Vanderpool, Presiding

                                          April 28, 2026
                    ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND
                     Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.


      Appellant, Cody Lee Cochran, appeals from two convictions for continuous sexual

abuse of a child,1 two convictions for prohibited sexual conduct,2 and one conviction for


      1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.02(b).


      2 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 25.02.
possession of child pornography.3 The trial court sentenced Appellant to ninety-nine

years of confinement for each continuous sexual abuse conviction and ten years of

confinement for each of the remaining convictions. The clerk’s record and reporter’s

record have been filed. However, the reporter’s record does not include State’s Exhibits

22, 23, and 24.      The court reporter has advised this Court that these exhibits are

encrypted by the FBI and cannot be accessed or reviewed without FBI encryption

software. They are presently maintained on file with the district clerk.


       Because the appellate record is incomplete in a manner that prevents meaningful

review, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further

proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall require the State to provide accessible,

reviewable copies of State’s Exhibits 22, 23, and 24, that can be transmitted to and

examined by this Court and Appellant without the need for FBI Encryption Software. The

trial court shall further direct the court reporter to file the accessible exhibits with the Clerk

of this Court by May 28, 2026.


       If the State is unable to provide the de-encrypted exhibits or otherwise accessible

versions of the exhibits, the trial court shall conduct a hearing in accordance with Rule of

Appellate Procedure 34.6(f) to determine whether the exhibits are functionally lost or

destroyed. See Herrera v. State, No. 13-22-00352-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 2857, at

*13–14 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 25, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (doing same);

Mendoza v. State, No. 07-14-00034-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6485, at *2–3 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo June 16, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (remanding appeal for findings



       3 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 43.26(d).


                                                2
pursuant to Rule 34.6(f)). Following such a hearing, the trial court shall enter findings of

fact on the aforementioned matters and include its findings in a supplemental record to

be filed with this Court by May 28, 2026.


       It is so ordered.


                                                        Per Curiam


Do not publish.




                                             3