AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 7, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00652-CR ANSEL EUGENE JEFFRIES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. M21-33261

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Kennedy Ansel Eugene Jeffries appe als his conviction for the misdemeanor offense of assault, family violence. Appellant, proc eeding pro se on appeal, failed to file an appellant’s brief. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Because all issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.4.
B ACKGROUND On April 9, 2021, appellant was charge d by information with the offense of assault causing bodily injury, family viol ence. The offense wa s alleged to have occurred on March 15, 2021, and to have involved a woman with whom appellant–2– had a dating relationship. The trial court found appellant was not indigent and, thus, he was not eligible for the appointment of court appointed counsel. Appellant was represented by retained counsel in the trial court. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty. A jury returned a verdict of guilty on May 17, 2023. The jury assessed punishment at confinement in the county jail for a period of 0 days and a fi ne in the amount of $0. 1 In addition, the jury recommended that appellant be placed on community superv ision. The record reflects that, on May 19, 2023, the trial court ruled the punishme nt verdict was void and rescheduled a punishment hearing for June 1, 2023. The basis for the court’s ruling concerning the punishment verdict is not stated in the record before us. On June 1, 2023, appellant signed a Judicial Admonition of Defendant’s Rights and Plea Agreement. It appears that the plea agreement was limited to p unishment as appellant did not change his plea of not guilty and the jury had already re turned a verdict of gu ilty. That verdict was not set aside. The judge certified that the agreement was a plea bargain, and that appellant had the right to app eal and had not waived that right. 2 The plea agreement provided for a sentence of 3 da ys’ confinement in the Dallas County jail

1 The range of punishment for this offense is confin ement in jail for a period not to exceed one year, a fine not to exceed $4,000, or both. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE § 12.21(2).
2 While the trial court indicated appellant entered in to a plea bargain, in actuality this is not a plea bargain case within the meaning of Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because, while the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by appellant, appellant did not plead guilty or nolo contendere to the charged offense. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2) (defining a “plea bargain case” as one in wh ich the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere, and the punishment does not exceed the punishment r ecommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant.”).–3– and a fine of $100, with credit for time se rved. On June 1, 2023, the trial court signed a “Judgment on Plea of Not Guilty be fore the Jury [-] Punishment by the Judge” indicating a jury verdict of guilty and assessing punishment at 3 days’ confinement in the Dallas Count y jail and a fine of $100, w ith credit for time served. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant proceeded pro se in this Cour t. The clerk’s record was filed on July 26, 2023, with supplemental records bei ng filed on July 31, September 1, and September 13. With respect to the court reporter’s record, on July 6, 2023, the court reporter notified the Court that appellant had not paid, or made arrangeme nts to pay, for the record and is not appealing as indi gent. On August 3, we directed appellant to provide notice in ten days that he ha d requested preparation of the reporter’s record. On August 16, appellant advise d that payment arrangements were being made with the court reporte r. On September 11, havi ng received no further updates from appellant with respect to the court re porter’s record and not having received the reporter’s record, we directed appellant to provide notice in ten days that he had requested preparation of the reporter’s r ecord and written verification that he had paid or made arrangements to pay the cour t reporter’s fee. We cautioned appellant that if we did not receive documentation with in the stated time, the Court might order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. On October 12, not having received the reporter’s record, a written veri fication that appellant had paid for the reporter’s record, or any res ponse to our September 11 orde r we ordered this appeal–4– submitted without the reporter’s record, and we ordered appellant to file his brief by November 9. Appellant did not file a br ief by November 9. On December 5, we ordered appellant to file his brief and a mo tion for extension of time to file the brief on or before December 20. We advised appellant that if he failed to file his brief by December 20, the appeal might be subm itted on the clerk’s record and without appellant’s brief. Appellant failed to file a brief and a motion for extension of time to file same by December 20. We notified appellant on March 27, 2024, that the case would be submitted without oral argu ment on May 14. We submitted the appeal without briefs on May 14. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b)(4).
D ISCUSSION The failure of an appellant to file an appellant’s brief in a criminal case does not authorize the dismissal of a case. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b)(1); see also T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 44.33(b) (stating appellant’s failu re to file his brief in the time prescribed shall not authorize dismissal of appeal by court of appeals). Generally, when an appellant has not filed a brief in a criminal case, Rule 38.8(b) requires the appellate court to remand the case to th e trial court to conduct a hearing and “determine whether the appellant desire s to prosecute his appeal, whether the appellant is indigent, or, if not indigent , whether retained c ounsel has abandoned the appeal, and to make appropriate findings and recommendations.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b)(2); see also Burton v. State , 267 S.W.3d 101, 103 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2008, no pet. ). But when an appellant has chosen to represent–5– himself on appeal and has already been warned of the dangers of pro se representation, there is no need to remand for such a hearing. Burton , 267 S.W.3d at 103; see also Lott v. State , 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Moreover, Rule 38.8(b)(4) states an “appe llate court may cons ider [an] appeal without briefs, as justice may require.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b)(4); see also Scwartzkopf v. State , Nos. 05-21-00662-CR, 05- 21-00663-CR, 2022 WL 3714518, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 29, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (submitting case w ithout briefs and reviewi ng record for fundamental error where pro se appellant failed to file brief). In doing so, we review the record for fundamental error. Cooper v. State , No. 05-21-01002-CR, 2023 WL 6475647, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 5, 2023, pet. ref’d) (mem . op., not designated for publication); Scwartzkopf , 2022 WL 3714518, at *1 ; Seay v. State , Nos. 05-18- 00362-CR to 05-18-00364-CR, 2019 WL 388665 2, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 19, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Cooper v. State , No. 05-14-00089-CR, 2015 WL 150081, at *1 (T ex. App.—Dallas Ja n. 8, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Fundamental errors include: (1) denial of the right to counsel; (2) denial of the right to a jury trial; (3) denial of ten da ys’ preparation before trial for appointed counsel; (4) absence of juri sdiction over the defendant; (5 ) absence of subject-matter jurisdiction; (6) prosecution under a penal statute that does not comply with the Separation of Powers Section of the stat e constitution; (7) jury charge errors–6– resulting in egregious harm; (8) holding tr ials at a location other than the county seat; (9) prosecution under an ex post facto law; and (10) commen ts by a trial judge which taint the presumption of innocence. See Saldano v. State , 70 S.W.3d 873, 888–89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Burton , 267 S.W.3d at 103.
C ONCLUSION Without a brief, no issues are before us. In the interest of justice, we have reviewed the clerk’s record in this appeal for fundamenta l error and have found none.
See Burton , 267 S.W.3d at 103; see also Scwartzkopf , 2022 WL 3714518, at *1. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment.

D O N OT P UBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47
230652F.U05 /Nancy Kennedy / NANCY KENNEDY JUSTICE–7– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ANSEL EUGENE JEFFRIES, Appellant
No. 05-23-00652-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10, Dalla s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. M21-33261. Opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy. Justices Molberg and Nowell participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 7th day of June, 2024.