Alfredo Uretega Garcia v. The State of Texas Appeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 11, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00352-CR ALFREDO URETEGA GARCIA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 686001 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant’s conviction for sexual assault of a child was affirmed April 17, 1997. See Garcia v. State, No. 08-96-00196-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso Apr. 17, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Appellant appeals the denial of his second motion for DNA testing.1 1 Appellant’s earlier appeal of his first motion for DNA testing was dismissed because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. Appellant is not represented on appeal by counsel. Appellant’s brief was originally due October 6, 2016, but no brief has been filed. This court abated the appeal and directed the trial court to conduct a hearing 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 a hearing, and appellant confirmed to the court that he wished to pursue his appeal and was in the process of hiring an attorney to assist with his appeal. This court set a due date of March 6, 2017 for appellant’s brief to be filed. When appellant failed to file a brief, this court ordered appellant to file a brief on or before May 25, 2017, and explained that if appellant did not timely file a brief as ordered, the court would consider the appeal without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). 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 Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise. Do Not Publish — Tex.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.
