DANIEL CLARK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed December 31, 1996
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-95-01336-CR
............................
DANIEL CLARK, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
..............................................................
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F95-22380-QW
..............................................................
OPINION PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Maloney and Hankinson
        Daniel Clark appeals his conviction, following a negotiated plea bargain, for possession of cocaine in an amount less than one gram. FN:1 Pursuant to the plea bargain, punishment was assessed at two years' confinement in a State Jail, probated for three years, and a $750 fine. FN:2
        Appellant filed a written waiver of counsel and represented himself in the trial court. FN:3 On August 14, 1995, appellant pleaded nolo contendere, the trial court found appellant guilty, and assessed punishment in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain agreement. On September 6, 1995, appellant filed a written waiver of counsel on appeal and a notice of appeal that complied with the requirements of rule 40(b)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. FN:4
        On October 10, 1995, appellant filed the transcript in this cause. On October 24, 1995, appellant filed the statement of facts. On December 6, 1995, appellant filed a motion to extend time to file his brief. On January 12, 1996, we denied the motion without prejudice because appellant had not filed the brief by the date requested in the extension motion. The order stated that any subsequent motions should be filed within ten days of the date of the order. On February 8, 1996, the Clerk of this Court sent appellant a letter telling him that his brief was overdue and directing him to file his brief and an extension motion that complied with the rules of appellate procedure within ten days of the date of the letter. On February 16, 1996, appellant filed a second motion to extend time to file his brief. The motion was granted on February 29, 1996, and appellant was ordered to file his brief by March 20, 1996. On March 20, 1996 and March 29, 1996, appellant filed third and fourth motions to extend time to file his brief. The motions were granted on April 10, 1996, and appellant was ordered to file his brief within ten days of the date of the order. The order specifically stated that no further extensions would be granted. The order also stated that if appellant did not file his brief as required, the appeal may be submitted without a brief. To date, no appellant's brief has been filed in this cause.
        Accordingly, we submitted the case without briefs and, in the interest of justice, reviewed the entire record. See Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 & n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Having found no fundamental error, we affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.
 
PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
 
FN:1 Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(3)(D), 481.115(a), (b) (Vernon 1992 and Supp. 1997).
FN:2 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (Vernon 1994); Act of May 29, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 900, § 4.01, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3716, 3731-32 (subsequent amendments not listed) (current version at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 15 (Vernon Supp. 1997)).
FN:3 The trial court also appointed an attorney to assist appellant during the proceedings.
FN:4 The notice of appeal specifies that appellant raised his "motion to dismiss-denial of right to examining trial" prior to trial and the motion was ruled on prior to trial. The record supports this assertion.
File Date[12-31-96]
File Name[951336F]