Norville Glenn Slover v. State

SLOVER V STATE

NO. 10-89-275-CR

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT WACO

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

          NORVILLE GLENN SLOVER,

                                                                                            Appellant

          v.

          THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                            Appellee

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

From the County Court of

Somervell County, Texas

Trial Court # 2785-M

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

O P I N I O N

* * * * * * *

          A jury found appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated and assessed his punishment at seventy-two hours in jail and a fine of $300. Appellant's sole complaint is that the court erred in overruling his objection to the jury array. The judgment will be affirmed.

          Appellant argues that his trial was illegal because the jury was selected from a "stale" prospective jury list that was prepared over a year before his trial. He claims that he objected to the use of the stale list at trial. However, the record does not contain a statement of facts of the trial proceedings. Without a complete record showing an objection and an adverse ruling by the court, appellant waived any error. See Tex. R. App. P. 50(a), 52(a); Daniel v. Esmaili, 761 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988, no writ).

          Additionally, the appellant has failed to preserve any error on this point. The transcript shows appellant filed two documents. The first was titled "Objection to the Prospective Jury Panel" and the second "Defendant's Challenge to the Jury Array". There is nothing in the transcript indicating these motions were ruled upon and therefore the appellant has preserved nothing for review. See Rougeau v. State, 738 S.W.2d 651, 665 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987).

          Appellant argues that section 62.004(c) of the Texas Government Code combined with article V, section 29, of the Texas Constitution imposes a one year time limitation on prospective jury lists. See Tex. Const. art. V, § 29; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 62.004(c) (Vernon 1988). Article V, section 29 of the Texas Constitution requires that there be at least four terms of county court annually. Section 62.004(c) of the Government Code requires that the district or county clerk and the sheriff shall draw as many jury lists as are required for the term of court and that the names shall be placed on as many lists as the judge in whose presence the names are drawn deems necessary to ensure an adequate number of jurors for the term. When these constitutional and statutory provisions are read in conjunction, we find that there is no express or implied one year time limitation placed on prospective jury lists. Appellant's point of error is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

                                                                                                                                                                                                               BOBBY L. CUMMINGS

                                                                                 Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas, Justice

         Cummings and Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed January 31, 1991

Do not publish

874 S.W.2d 687, 688 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). However, when a non-indigent appellant chooses to appear pro se on appeal, there is no need to remand for a Rule 74(l)(2) hearing. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(l)(2) ("If the trial judge finds that the appellant . . . is not indigent but has failed to make necessary arrangements for filing a brief, the appellate court may consider the appeal without briefs, as justice may require."); see also Lott, 874 S.W.2d at 688 n.2 (citing Coleman v. State, 774 S.W.2d 736 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.)).

      The trial court at a hearing held on October 15, 1996, found that Perkins was not indigent and that he could afford to hire his own counsel on appeal. Perkins has nevertheless chosen to proceed pro se. Since the transcript was filed in this court on November 20, 1996, Perkins, despite repeated attempts by this court to persuade him to communicate with us, has completely ignored our requests that he file a statement of facts and a brief. Therefore, we will consider Perkins' appeal without the benefit of either a statement of facts or an appellant's brief.

      We have reviewed the entire record before us, and having found no unassigned fundamental error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. See Lott, 874 S.W.2d at 688.

      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                                     PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

            Justice Cummings, and

            Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed February 12, 1997

Do not publish