See T ex. Pe nal Code A nn. § 2 2.0 41(c) (Verno n 200 7). T his of fense is a sta te jail 1 felon y , pun ishab le by con f inem entin a st ate ja il for a ny term o f n ot mo re t han two y ears or l ess than 180 days a nd a fine notto e xceed $10 ,000. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.35 (Verno n 20 07). NO. 07-08 -017 4-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JAN UA RY

28, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JAY GID BRY

AN, APP ELL ANT v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 DIS T RI CTCOU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; ND NO. B14 776 -030 1; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL, HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Jay Gi d B ryan f il ed a noti ce of appeal from t he tr ial co ur t’ s j udg ment adj udi cat ing him g uilty of

e nda ngering a child, rev oking his comm unity supervisi on a nd se nte ncing him 1 to two y ears’ co nfinement in the S tate Jai l Di v is ion of the T e xas D e p a rtment of C ri minal2

Jus ti ce. W e hav e c onsi dered th e appea l w it hout br iefs and affirm the j udg ment of the tr ial cour t. Appel lan t’ s b ri ef w as due t o be filed on J une 20, 2008, but w as nev er f il ed. By l etter dat ed Ju ly

3 , t h is Cou rt notif ied ap pellan t’s retaine d att orne y of the failure an d also ex pla ine d tha t i f no respon se w as re cei v ed by Ju ly 14, the a p p e a l wou ld be a bated p u rs u a n tt o Ru le 3 8 . 8 (b ) o f t h e T e xa s Ru le s o f

A p p e ll a t e P ro c e d u re . On Ju ly 8 , we re cei v ed a documentw herein co unsel ex pla ine d he was n e ver re tai ned or appoi nted to re presentappel lan t on appeal . On A ug ust19, w e abated this appeal to the t ri al cour t and ordered th e tr ial co u rtt o u tili z e w hatev er means nec ess ar

y to deter mine: ( 1) w hether appel lan t t ru ly

des ires to prosec ute the appeal; and (2)w hether appel lan t i s i ndi g ent a nd enti tl ed to appoi nted couns el. See B ry an v . St ate, N o. 07 -0 8- 0174- CR , 200 8 W L 38634 73 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo Aug. 19, 20 08) (order, no t designat ed for pub lication). The tr ial co urt c onducted a hear ing on S eptember 5, 2008, and i ss ued t he foll ow ing findi ng s: ( 1) a represent ati v e of ap pel lan t’ s bonds man appeared, ask ing that a war ra nt be is sued for appe ll ant b ecaus e h e h a d fail ed to co mply w it h the co ndi ti ons of his co ntract ; app ellant ’s bond was reset a nd a warrant was issue d for app ellant ’s arrest; (2) appe llant’s cas e w as firs t cal led at 1:00 p.m. and appel lan t faile d to appear ; (3 ) appel lan t’ s c ase w as cal led ag ain at 1:0 4 p .m. an d 2:1 0 p.m. and each ti me, no one respon ded; (4 ) appel lan t is a fugi ti v e; (5 ) the t ri al cour t i s u nabl e to deter mine if appel lan t t ru ly des ires to prosec ute the a ppeal ; and ( 6) the tr ial co urt i s u nabl e to deter mine if appel lan t i s i ndi g ent.3

On Se pte mb er 29, we again abat ed th e app eal pend ing f urthe r orde r of the Cou rt in an attempt to afford app ell ant t he oppo rt uni ty to pursue hisappeal . See Br yan v. State, No. 07- 08- 0174- CR , ___ _ W L ____ (Tex .App. –Amar il lo Sept. 29, 2008)( order , not desi g nated for public a ti on) . On D ecember 8, w e were not ified thatthe w ar ra nt for appel lan t’ s a rrestremaine d outstan din g . On D ecember 11, w e rein sta ted t he appe al. O n that same date, w e re v iewed bot h the repor ter ’s and cl er k’ s records and found referenc es to ap pellan t’s conn ection w ith six sepa rate ad dresse s. W e sen t not ice to ap pellan t at ea ch o f t h o s e a d d re s s e s in a n a tt e m p tt o d e t e rm in e h is in t e n tin t h is a p p e a l. T o d a t e , we h a ve not recei v ed appe ll ant’ s b rief or any co mmunic ati on from a ppel lan t. Our att empts to c o m m u n ic a t e wi t h a p p e ll a n th a ve b e e n u n s u c c e s s f u l. T h e t ri a l c o u rta n d t h is Co u rth a ve made ev er

y effort t o protect app ell a n t’ s righ ts . W e find further abat ement of the appeal woul d be futil e. Car

ro ll v. Sta te, 75 S.W .3d 633 , 634 (Tex.App .–W aco 2 002 , no pe t.). W e als o find that becau se appel lan t has done no thi ng to prosec ute t he appe al and has not k ept t hisC our

t or the tr ial co urt infor med of hisw hereabouts , app ell ant n o l ong er desi re s t o prosec ute t hisappeal . W e furt her find t hat g o o d cause ex is ts to s uspen d the re q uirement of

R ule 38.8 (b )( 4) thatthe findi ng be made by the tr ial co urt. See Tex . R . Ap p. P. 2 . See al

so Gonz

ale z v. Sta te, N o. 01 -0 5- 01155- CR , 2 0 0 7 W L 32276 86, (Tex .App. –Ho ust o n [ 1 D is t.] N ov . 1, 2007, no. pet.)( mem. op., not desi g nated for st publ ic ati on) . Ac cordin g ly , we hav e s ubmitted t hisca use w it hout br iefs and hav e rev iewed the record for fundamental er ro r. Carroll, 75 S. W .3d a t 634 , citi ng Lott v

. St ate, 874 S.W .2d 6 87, 6 88 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1994) .4

Our rev iew

of the reco rd discloses no “unassigned f und am ent al error.” See Carroll, 75 S .W .3d a t 634 ; Ashcra ft v. State, 802 S.W .2d 9 05, 9 06 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 1991, no pet ); Me za v

. St ate, 742 S.W .2d 708, 708- 09 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1987, no pet.) . S e ea l

s oG o n za le z, No. 01-05 -011 55-CR, 200 7 W L 32 276 86. The re c o rd here compr is es the c ler k’ s rec ord and the repo rt er ’s record of the hear ing on t he St ate’ s mot ion to proceed to adj udi cat ion of g uil t. W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment rev oki ng co mmunity su per v is io n under a n abuse of dis creti on s tandard, Rickel s v . St ate, 202 S.W .3d 759 , 763 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 6), and i ndul g e al l re asona ble inferences in a li g ht fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t’ s r uli ng , Jones v. State, 5 8 9 S . W . 2 d 4 1 9 , 4 2 1 (T e x. Cr im . A p p . 1 9 7 9 ) ( p a n e l o p . ). Pro o f b y a preponderance of the ev ide nce of anyone of the al leg ed v iol ati ons of t h e c o n dit ion s o f super v is ion is suffici ent to suppo rta rev ocat ion order . Mo or e v . St ate, 605 S.W .2d 9 24, 926 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1980) (p anel op.) ; Leachv. Sta te, 170 S.W .3d 6 69, 6 72 (Tex .App. –For

t W orth 2005, pet. ref’d) . At t he J anuar y 2008 hear ing on t he St ate’ s mot ion to proceed to adj udi cat ion , the cour t heard ev ide nce from appel lan t’ s comm uni ty supe rv ision of

f icer of app ellant ’s fa ilure to repo rt a s r e qu ir e d for the m ont hs of Februa ry throug h N ov ember

2007. W e find no fundamental er ro r here, an d aff ir m the jud g ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.