Victor Aguilar v. State ( 2003 )

Opinion issued November 20, 2003

In The  

Court of Appeals  

For The  

First District of Texas  

____________

NO. 01-03-00681-CR

____________

VICTOR AGUILAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 5

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1167181

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant, Victor Aguilar, was convicted by a jury of violation of a protective order. The jury assessed punishment of confinement in jail for 270 days and a fine of $4000. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and posted an appeal bond.

               We abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing after the court reporter informed us that appellant had not made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record and that his whereabouts were unknown. We notified appellant’s counsel of the court reporter’s correspondence, but received no response.

               The case was set for a hearing in the trial court on November 6, 2003, and the trial court’s findings and recommendations have been filed in this Court. The court’s findings are as follows:

(1)On November 6, 2003, the trial court asked for announcements in this case. The State appeared through an assistant district attorney.

(2)Appellant failed to appear. Eduardo Sillas, attorney of record on appeal was notified of this setting and appeared.

(3)Mr. Sillas made several attempts at contacting appellant without success.

(4)Mr. Sillas testified that his client has not made any attempt to pay any portion of the costs incident to this appeal.

The trial court concludes that appellant has abandoned this appeal.

               According to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we may consider an appeal without briefs if the trial court has found that the appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Accordingly, we consider this appeal without briefs.

               There is nothing but the clerk’s record presented for review. We have reviewed the record for fundamental error and find none. See Carroll v. State, 75 S.W.3d 633, 634 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.); Ashcraft v. State, 802 S.W.2d 905, 906 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no pet.); Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-09 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.).  

               We affirm the judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Keyes and Alcala.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).