John Lee Lawson v. State

Opinion issued August 20, 2009

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-08-00407-CR

____________

JOHN LEE LAWSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 131589

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, John Lee Lawson, pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of marihuana on May 1, 2009. Appellant was sentenced to confinement for eight days. Appellant gave notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress.

Because the complete record had not been timely filed with the Clerk of this Court, we abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing. We also note that counsel for appellant filed a motion informing this Court that appellant had not made any contact with him since the day he was sentenced on May 6, 2008. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b).

The reporter's record for the abatement hearing conducted on July 7, 2009 has been filed with the Clerk of this Court. The record reflects that counsel for appellant was present at the hearing, and that appellant did not appear. The record also reflects the trial court's efforts to secure the attendance of the appellant. We order the appeal reinstated.

At the conclusion of the hearing the trial judge stated, " The court has heard the testimony of William Meitzen, the attorney for the appellant. He testified as to the attempts to contact his client, John Lee Lawson. There has been no compliance with appeal on behalf of John Lee Lawson and . . .we have attempted to serve him and all attempts were unsuccessful. And the court enters a finding that the appellant des not wish to proceed with the appeal." Based on the record before this Court, we find that appellant has done nothing to prosecute his appeal, and that he has not kept his attorney, the trial court, or this Court informed of his whereabouts.

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.

Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hanks, and Bland.

Do not publish.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