Timothy Dean McAlister v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 2 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-18-00121-CR ___________________________ TIMOTHY DEAN MCALISTER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 2 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1488130 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Pittman and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Timothy Dean McAlister appeals his conviction and his 180-day suspended sentence for driving while intoxicated while having an open container of alcohol.1 After McAlister filed his notice of appeal with assistance of retained counsel, his counsel withdrew. Although McAlister requested appointed counsel, the trial court found that he was not indigent and denied that request. McAlister proceeded pro se. We received a clerk’s record, but we did not receive a reporter’s record because McAlister did not pay for it. On June 29, 2018, we sent a letter to McAlister to inform him that his brief would be due on August 13, 2018. McAlister did not file a brief. On September 11, 2018, we issued an order stating that McAlister had not filed his brief and informing him that we could consider his appeal without briefs unless before September 21, 2018, he filed a motion reasonably explaining his failure to file a brief. McAlister never filed such a motion. The trial court has held a hearing in which the court determined that McAlister desires to prosecute his appeal and that he is not indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). McAlister has not made necessary arrangements for filing a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Accordingly, we will consider this appeal without briefs. See id. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a), (c) (West Supp. 2018). The trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed McAlister on community supervision. 1 2 We have reviewed the clerk’s record and have not discerned any unassigned fundamental error. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Nichols v. State, No. 02-16-00150-CR, 2017 WL 4974774, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 2, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). /s/ Wade Birdwell Wade Birdwell Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: January 10, 2019 3
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.
