Dennis Frank Sanford v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Dennis Frank Sanford v. State

DecidedJanuary 25, 2006

Docket12-05-00238-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Dennis Frank Sanford v. State (Dennis Frank Sanford v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dennis Frank Sanford v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 12-05-00238-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DENNIS FRANK SANFORD, § APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 1, 2004, Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of two ounces or less of marijuana. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court sentenced Appellant to confinement for 180 days, probated for 18 months. On June 27, 2005, the trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, sentenced him to confinement for 180 days, and imposed a $500 fine. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on June 30. The clerk’s record was filed on September 12, making Appellant’s brief due, after extensions of time, on December 14.

On December 16, 2005, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief. Counsel explained in his motion that he had prepared an appellate brief in this cause. However, he had been unable to review and explain the contents with Appellant because he was unable to locate Appellant after having made a diligent effort to do so. Consequently, he sought an extension of time for filing his brief, which would provide additional time to locate Appellant. We remanded the matter to the trial court on December 21. In our order, we instructed the trial court to immediately conduct a hearing to determine, in part, whether Appellant still desires to prosecute this appeal. We also instructed the trial court to make appropriate findings and recommendations and prepare a record of the proceedings.

The trial court set the hearing for January 11, 2006. Appellant did not appear. On January 18, the trial court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which included a conclusion that Appellant has abandoned the appeal. We adopt the trial court’s findings and conclusions and consider this appeal without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Because no briefs have been filed, there is nothing but the record presented for review. We have reviewed the record for fundamental error and find none. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered January 25, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NO. 12-05-00238-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DENNIS FRANK SANFORD, § APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 1, 2004, Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of two ounces or less of marijuana. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court sentenced Appellant to confinement for 180 days, probated for 18 months. On June 27, 2005, the trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, sentenced him to confinement for 180 days, and imposed a $500 fine. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on June 30. The clerk’s record was filed on September 12, making Appellant’s brief due, after extensions of time, on December 14.

On December 16, 2005, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief. Counsel explained in his motion that he had prepared an appellate brief in this cause. However, he had been unable to review and explain the contents with Appellant because he was unable to locate Appellant after having made a diligent effort to do so. Consequently, he sought an extension of time for filing his brief, which would provide additional time to locate Appellant. We remanded the matter to the trial court on December 21. In our order, we instructed the trial court to immediately conduct a hearing to determine, in part, whether Appellant still desires to prosecute this appeal. We also instructed the trial court to make appropriate findings and recommendations and prepare a record of the proceedings.

The trial court set the hearing for January 11, 2006. Appellant did not appear. On January 18, the trial court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which included a conclusion that Appellant has abandoned the appeal. We adopt the trial court’s findings and conclusions and consider this appeal without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Because no briefs have been filed, there is nothing but the record presented for review. We have reviewed the record for fundamental error and find none. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered January 25, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dennis Frank Sanford v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-frank-sanford-v-state-texapp-2006.