Milton Whiting v. The State of Texas Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 9, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00256-CR MILTON WHITING, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1365102 MEMORANDUM OPINION After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and sentenced by the trial court to sixty years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant is represented on appeal by retained counsel. Appellant s brief was originally due July 1, 2013, but no brief has been filed. This court twice abated the appeal and directed the trial court to conduct hearings to determine the reason for the failure to file a brief pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b). The trial court held both hearings, and each time appellant confirmed to the court that he wished counsel to remain his attorney on appeal. At each hearing, counsel advised the court that only minor portions of the brief needed to be completed and he would file the brief within a matter of days. The trial court found appellant is not indigent, and that he desires to have retained counsel represent him on appeal. On June 24, 2014, this court ordered counsel to file a brief on or before July 18, 2014. The court explained that if counsel did not timely file appellant s brief as ordered, the court would consider the appeal without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Still, no brief was filed. On the basis of the trial court s 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 Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown. Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
