Valencia O. Curtis v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Smith County

NO. 12-05-00044-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

VALENCIA O. CURTIS, APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

V. COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On October 5, 2004, Appellant pleaded guilty to unlawfully carrying a weapon and was sentenced to confinement for 120 days. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on October 5, 2004. The clerk s record was filed on February 8, 2005.

On February 24, 2005, this court notified Appellant that her docketing statement was due at the time she perfected her appeal, but had not been received. Appellant was further informed that unless the docketing statement was filed no later than March 7, 2005, the case would be referred to the trial court to determine the cause of the delay. Appellant failed to respond to the notice, and we remanded the case to the trial court on March 14, 2005. In our order, we instructed the trial court to (1) immediately conduct a hearing to determine the cause of Appellant s failure to file the docketing statement and whether the appointed counsel has abandoned the appeal, (2) take necessary action to insure the prompt filing of the docketing statement with this court, (3) make appropriate findings and recommendations, and (4) prepare a record of the proceedings.

The trial court set the hearing for March 21, 2005. Appellant did not appear. On May 10, 2005, the trial court filed its findings, which included a finding that notice of the March 21 hearing was sent to the only address the trial court had for Appellant, which was the address of the bonding company of Appellant; that Appellant failed to appear; and that Appellant had abandoned the appeal.

As of the date of this opinion, neither a docketing statement nor a brief has been filed in this court. Accordingly, we consider this appeal without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Consequently, there is nothing but the record presented for review. We have reviewed the record for fundamental error and find none. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion delivered May 11, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)