Ramirez, Armando Solis v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 185th District Court of Harris County

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 11, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-01268-CR

____________

ARMANDO SOLIS RAMIREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 796,826

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea, without an agreed recommendation on punishment, to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. He received deferred adjudication and was placed on community supervision for ten years. Upon the State=s motion, on October 24, 2002, the trial court entered a judgment adjudicating appellant=s guilt and sentencing him to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant is not represented by counsel in this appeal. On January 17, 2003, time to file appellant=s brief expired, and no brief or motion for extension of time was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). Accordingly, on January 23, 2003, this Court ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine, among other matters, whether appellant had abandoned his appeal without making arrangements for filing a brief.

On February 18, 2003, the trial court conducted the hearing by video teleconference. A record of that hearing was filed with the clerk of this Court on February 21, 2003. At the hearing, appellant stated that he wanted to go forward with his appeal and that he had hired a Houston attorney by the name of John Zepeda to represent him on appeal. He had no address or phone number for the attorney, however. The court advised appellant to get in touch with his attorney and have the attorney contact this Court.

After thirty days elapsed without any contact from appellant, Mr. Zepeda, or any attorney representing appellant, we issued another order requiring the court to conduct a hearing. The trial court conducted the hearing on April 21, 2003 and a record of the hearing was filed with the clerk of this court on April 23, 2003. At the hearing, appellant continued to assert he needed additional time to contact his family to hire an attorney to represent him. The trial court took no action. To date, no brief has been filed on behalf of appellant and this court has not been contacted by appellant or any attorney representing him. More than six months have elapsed since appellant=s brief was first due. Therefore, it appears to this court that appellant has effectively abandoned his appeal without making arrangements for filing a brief. Under those circumstances, we are required to refer the matter to the trial court for findings.

On July 31, 2003, this court again ordered a hearing to determine why appellant had not filed a brief in this appeal. On August 21, 2003, the trial court conducted the hearing via video teleconference. The record of the hearing was filed in this court on August 29, 2003.

At the hearing, appellant testified he wished to waive his appeal. Accordingly, the trial court found appellant no longer desires to prosecute his appeal.

On the basis of those findings, this court has considered the appeal without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b). We find no fundamental error.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed September 11, 2003.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Anderson and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).