William Joseph Boaz v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court of Hamilton County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-91-088-CR

WILLIAM JOSEPH BOAZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court

Hamilton County, Texas

Trial Court # 10,783

O P I N I O N

Appellant, acting pro se, perfected an appeal on May 15, 1991, from an April 25 conviction for driving without a license and speeding. The transcript was filed in this court on May 24, and the statement of facts was due to be filed by June 24. Neither a statement of facts nor Appellant's brief has been filed to date.

This appeal was abated by order of this court issued November 6, and the trial court was instructed to conduct a hearing to determine why neither a statement of facts nor Appellant's brief had been filed, whether Appellant desired to continue to prosecute the appeal and, if so, whether he was indigent and needed an attorney appointed. The court's findings were filed in this court on December 11. Those findings are as follows:

(1) That the Defendant, William Joseph Boaz, is a thirty-one (31) year old single white male.

(2) That the Defendant is under no disabilities.

(3) That the Defendant has no children or other dependents and resides at Evant, Texas.

(4) The Defendant is gainfully employed at Granny's Cafe at Evant, Texas, has been so continuously for the preceding one (1) year period.

(5) The Defendant is not indigent and has not seriously attempted to hire counsel in the above cause.

(6) The Court finds that the Defendant is fully financially capable of hiring assistance of counsel in the above cause but refuses to attempt to do so.

The Court finds that the Appellant William Joseph Boaz desires to prosecute his appeal as long as there is no expense or obligation for expense to the said William Joseph Boaz.

The appellant has no excuse for failing to file a brief or statement of facts in the appellate court in the above cause other than the fact that Appellant does not know the procedure involved and does not wish to expend his own funds for such.

Rule 74(l)(2) provides that we may consider an appeal in instances where the Appellant is not indigent and fails to make necessary arrangements to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 72(l)(2). The rule primarily protects indigent appellants from the failure of appointed counsel to provide a brief. Coleman v. State, 774 S.W.2d 736, 738 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.).

Here, we have no brief, no statement of facts, and an appellant who is not indigent but who will not file a brief because he refuses to incur the expense of hiring an attorney. Given those facts and the fact that the record before us fails to reveal any matter which should be reviewed as unassigned error in the interest of justice, we affirm the judgment. See Bridges v. State, 471 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (on rehearing).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 4, 1992

Do not publish