Carlos R. Quinteros v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 28, 2004
• Docket: 01-03-01053-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 28, 2004

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-03-01053-CR

CARLOS R. QUINTEROS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 00-387

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant, Carlos R. Quinteros, pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated on April 13, 2000. The trial judge assessed punishment at jail confinement for 180 days and a fine of $700, but suspended the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for two years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision. On August 27, 2003, the court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of community supervision and sentenced him to confinement for 180 days. Appellant’s counsel, Rosalind A. Kelly, filed a timely notice of appeal.

               We abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on June 17, 2004 because Kelly informed the Court that she had not communicated with appellant since November 2003, although she had attempted to do so, and because only the clerk’s record had been filed in this Court.

               The hearing on our abatement order was conducted in the trial court on July 21, 2004, and the reporter’s record of those proceedings has been filed. Kelly appeared for the hearing, but appellant did not. Kelly stated that she had no idea of appellant’s whereabouts. The trial judge found that appellant does not desire to prosecute the 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 Justices Nuchia, Hanks, and Higley.

Do not publish.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