Molinar, George v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of El Paso County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GEORGE MOLINAR,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-00-00399-CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 980C11913)

O P I N I O N

George Molinar was charged, by information and complaint, with assault. A jury found Molinar guilty of the assault and sentenced him to one day of confinement and assessed a $4,000 fine against him. Judgment was entered by the trial court judge on September 14, 2000.

On September 19, 2000, a motion for new trial was filed. The following day, notice of appeal was filed.

Molinar was represented at trial by the Public Defender. A hearing on indigency was ordered for October 4. On October 10, the Public Defender filed a motion to withdraw as attorney on appeal. Appellant filed an objection to the motion. We ordered a hearing to determine whether Molinar wished to pursue the appeal, whether he had retained counsel, or whether he was indigent and entitled to appointment of counsel. After the hearing, the trial court found that Molinar wished to pursue the appeal. Moreover, it determined that appellant was not indigent or entitled to appointment of counsel.

Any reporter=s record was due January 12, 2001. On January 24, the court reporter notified this Court that no designation or satisfactory arrangement had been made for the preparation of the record. Additionally, Molinar appeared to be without counsel. We ordered another hearing on Molinar=s status. Pursuant to that hearing, the trial court found that Molinar wished to pursue the appeal, that he was not then represented by counsel, that he was not indigent, that he was able to make partial payments toward the cost of the reporter=s record, and that he could make partial payments within forty-five days.

The reporter=s record was next due May 23. On May 7, the court reporter notified this Court that no arrangements had been made regarding the record. We ordered that the trial court conduct another hearing to determine whether Molinar wished to continue his appeal and whether he had retained counsel.

At the hearing, Molinar asserted his desire to pursue the appeal and requested that he be permitted to represent himself. He was questioned about his reasons for continuing pro se. Then he was advised about dangers of representing himself. He was also admonished that this Court might consider and rule on his appeal without a reporter=s record. The court then found that Molinar was competent to represent himself on appeal.

Another status hearing was held on October 22, 2001. The court found that appellant wished to pursue his appeal. The court recommended that appellant be permitted to secure counsel no later than December 31, 2001 and that appellant be permitted to file the reporter=s record.

In a letter dated November 29, the Clerk of this Court informed appellant that pursuant to the trial court findings, it appeared to this Court that appellant would be retaining new counsel. The letter also stated that if payment for the reporter=s record were made, the Court should be advised of them. Neither of the events has occurred. In a letter dated January 29, 2002, the Clerk informed appellant that because he had not retained new counsel or made arrangements for preparation of the reporter=s record, his appeal would be submitted on the clerk=s record only.

We believe that appellant has had notice and reasonable opportunity to cure his defects. We may therefore consider only those points that do not require the reporter=s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). And although appellant has not filed a brief, we may consider the appeal without a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4); Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).

No issue has been presented for consideration. We review appellant=s case only for fundamental error, and we find none.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

SUSAN LARSEN, Justice

June 27, 2002

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)