Reginald Charles LeBlanc v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 29, 2004
Docket01-03-00703-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Reginald Charles LeBlanc v. State (Reginald Charles LeBlanc 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
Reginald Charles LeBlanc v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion




In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________


NO. 01-03-00703-CR


REGINALD CHARLES LeBLANC, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 7

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1152028




MEMORANDUM OPINION

               A jury found appellant guilty of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated. The court assessed punishment at confinement in jail for 180 days, probated for one year, and a fine of $700. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

               We abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court in response to a motion for a free reporter’s record filed by appellant’s retained counsel, Gerald Fry. We directed the trial court to conduct an indigency hearing.

               We received a supplemental clerk’s record that includes the following findings signed by the trial court:

1.On 25 February 2004, the trial court asked for announcements in the case. The State appeared through an assistant district attorney. Appellant appeared with his attorney, Gerald Fry.

2.Appellant stated that he did not want to participate in an indigency hearing because he was not indigent.

3.Appellant further stated he had lost interest in his appeal and would not pay for a record.

The trial court concludes that appellant has abandoned this appeal. The trial court recommends that the appellate court dismiss the appeal.


               We may consider an appeal without briefs if the trial court has found that the appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal, or that the appellant is not indigent, but has not made the necessary arrangements for filing a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Here, the trial court found that appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal. Accordingly, we consider this appeal without briefs.

               We have reviewed the clerk’s record for fundamental error and find none. See 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 trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Bland.

Do not publish.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

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

Related

Ashcraft v. State
802 S.W.2d 905 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Meza v. State
742 S.W.2d 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Reginald Charles LeBlanc v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reginald-charles-leblanc-v-state-texapp-2004.