Francis Edmundo Lopez v. State ( 2005 )

Opinion issued April 8, 2005   

     In the

Court of Appeals  

For The  

First District of Texas  

____________

NO. 01-04-00963-CR

____________

FRANCIS LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 12

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1166603

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          On May 13, 2004, appellant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated and was placed on community supervision. This is an appeal from the revocation of community supervision on appellant’s plea of true on July 15, 2004, at which time the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 60 days. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on July 30, 2004. The clerk’s record was filed on September 30, 2004.

          On January 13, 2005, because no brief had been filed and no counsel had entered an appearance on appellant’s behalf, this Court remanded this cause to the trial court to determine whether appellant wished to prosecute his appeal and, if he did, whether he had been deprived of a brief because of indigency, or whether he had retained counsel who had abandoned the appeal.

          On March 3, 2005, the case was set for a hearing in the trial court. Appellant did not appear. On March 14, 2005, the trial judge filed findings and recommendations in this court stating in pertinent part as follows:

4.The court coordinator spoke with the defendant by phone. By agreement with the defendant the case was set on the docket for September 30, 2004. The defendant did not appear and later called and said he could not get off work.

5.On September 2, 2004 the court set an appeal bond at $10,000. To this day, the bond has never been posted.

6. During late August and early September the court reporter had several phone conversations with the defendant regarding arrangement to pay for the record.

7.On October 21, 2004 the court reporter received a check from the defendant to prepare the record. Prior to the check arriving in the mail the defendant had missed several appointments to appear in person to pay the court reporter.

8.On February 12, 2005 the court sent letters to the defendant by both regular and certified return receipt mail informing him to appear at the abatement hearing on March 3, 2005.

9.On March 3, 2005, the trial court asked for announcements in this case. The State appeared through an assistant district attorney. Appellant failed to appear.

10.The court made additional unsuccessful attempts to contact the defendant by telephone.

The trial court concludes that the appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal and has abandoned this appeal.

          As of the date of this opinion, no brief has been filed in this Court. Accordingly, we consider this appeal without briefs.

          There is nothing but the 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 of the trial court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes and Hanks.

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