Raul Salazar v. State ( 2012 )

NUMBER 13-10-00327-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
RAUL SALAZAR, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 404th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
A jury found appellant Raul Salazar guilty of possession of marihuana, a
third-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ' 481.121(a), (b)(4) (West
2010). After assessing punishment at five years in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice—Institutional Division, the trial court suspended the sentence and placed Salazar
on community supervision for five years. We affirm.
Salazar filed his notice of appeal on May 14, 2010. Appellant=s brief was
originally due to be filed on March 2, 2011. On June 16, 2011, this Court abated the case
and remanded it to the trial court to determine whether Salazar desired to prosecute this
appeal; why Salazar's counsel had failed to file a brief and whether counsel had
effectively abandoned the appeal; whether Salazar had been denied effective assistance
of counsel; whether Salazar's counsel should be removed; and whether Salazar was
indigent and entitled to court-appointed counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). The
trial court held a hearing on August 11, 2011 and found that Salazar wished to pursue his
appeal and was not indigent, and granted Salazar’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. The
trial court directed Salazar to hire a new lawyer and file an appellate brief.
On September 29, 2011, the Clerk of this Court directed Salazar to notify us if he
had obtained counsel. On December 2, 2011, having received no response, we ordered
Salazar to file his appellate brief by January 6, 2012. This Court also advised Salazar
that if he failed to file his brief, we would decide this appeal upon the record before us.
See Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Coleman v. State, 774
S.W.2d 736, 738-39 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.). Salazar has not
filed a brief or any other response. We, therefore, have submitted Salazar's case without
the benefit of briefs and, in the interest of justice, have reviewed the record. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 38.8(b)(4).
2
When an appellant fails to file a brief, an appellate court's review of the record is
limited to the following categories of fundamental errors: (1) errors recognized by the
legislature as fundamental; (2) the violation of rights, which are waivable only; and (3) the
denial of absolute, systemic requirements. Burton v. State, 267 S.W.3d 101, 103 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.) (citing Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 887-88
(Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Lott, 874 S.W.2d at 688)). The court of criminal appeals has
enumerated the following fundamental errors: (1) denial of the right to counsel; (2)
denial of the right to a jury trial; (3) denial of ten days' preparation before trial for appointed
counsel; (4) absence of jurisdiction over the defendant; (5) absence of subject-matter
jurisdiction; (6) prosecution under a penal statute that does not comply with the
Separation of Powers Section of the state constitution; (7) jury charge errors resulting in
egregious harm; (8) holding trials at a location other than the county seat; (9) prosecution
under an ex post facto law; and (10) comments by a trial judge which taint the
presumption of innocence. Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 888-89; Burton, 267 S.W.3d at 103.
Our examination of the record reveals no fundamental error. See Burton, 267
S.W.3d at 103. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 15th
day of March, 2012.
3