### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00011- CR

Richard C. Renfro, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 1 O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY NO. 09- 0207 7-1 , H ONO RAB LE SUZ ANNE B ROO KS , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Richard C. Renfro was ticketed for the offe nse of fa i ling to wea r his seatbe lt while ridi ng in a passeng er vehicle. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.413 (West 2011). Renfro challeng ed the c harg e in a municipal court jury trial, wher e the jury found him g uilty and asse ssed

as punishment a $35 fine. Renfro then appea led the verdic t to the county court at l aw , wh er e a second jury convicted him on these same char g es and ag ain assessed a $35 fine as punishment. I n addition, the county court assessed $228 in court costs. R en fr o then filed a notice of appea l with this Court on Dec ember 21, 2009. Renfro has failed to file his appellate brief in this Court de spite being g rante d almost seven months of ex tensions of t ime, the l ast of which car ried a war ning thatno further

extensions would be gra

nted. Finding no fundame ntal err or appa rent fr om the rec ords 1
prese nted, we w ill affirm the judg ment.

When an appellant has not filed a brief in a criminal case , we usually rema nd the

case to the trial court to conduct a hear ing and to “make appropr iate finding s and rec ommendations.” See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)( 2). At such a hear ing, the trial court deter mines whether the appellant is indig ent and whether he wishes to pur sue the appea l, a nd, if appellant is r epre sented by reta ined counsel, the trial court must deter mine whether reta ined counsel has abandone d the appea l. See id

. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)( 2 ). T h e latter deter mination is obviously irrele vant when, as here , the appellant is re prese nting himself.

The circ umstances of this case rende r the r e ma n d descr ibed in Rule 38.8 unnece ssary . The cler k’s rec ord contains an acknow ledg ment signe d by the defe ndant that the county court at law advised him of his rig ht to be repr esente d by counsel and of the “dang ers and disadvantag es of selfrepr esenta tion.” Renfro proce eded to repr esent himself at the trial court level as he does here

. R en fr o ’s af

fi davit of indige nce has not been challeng ed, and his failure to file a brief without explanation de spite four extensions of time and a war ning that no more extensions wer e permitted demonstrates his aba

ndonment of this appea l. Be cause Renfro has been warne d of t he dange rs of

Renfro’ s brief in this Court was orig inally due Dec ember 17, 2010. His motions for 1 extension of time to file his brief wer e g rante d, rese tting the d u e d at e to J anuar y 31, 2011, then M arc h 31, 2011, then M ay 31, 2011, and finally to J u l y 1 5 , 2 0 1 1

. The fourth extension was acc ompanied by n o t i ce t hat no further extensions of time would be g rante d. Renfro has not filed a brie f.

2pro se repr esenta tion, there is no need to rema nd for a rule 38.8(b) hear ing beca use the purposes of 2 such a hear ing have been satisfied by the circ umstances of this case . See Lott v. State , 874 S.W .2d 687, 6 8 8 n . 2 (Tex

. Crim. App. 1994); Burton v. Stat e , 267 S.W .3d 101, 103 (Tex. App.—Corpus C h ri s t i 2 0 0 8, no pet.). We submit this case without the benef it of briefs and, in the interest o f justice, revie w the re cord f or funda mental er rors. See B urton , 267 S.W .3d at 103. Fundamental err ors include: (1) err ors rec og nized by the leg islature as fundame ntal; (2) the violation of rig hts which are waivable only ; and (3) the denial o f ab s o lute, sy stemic require ments. Id. (citin g Saldano v. Stat e , 70 S.W .3d 873, 887-88 (Tex

. Crim. App. 2002)). The
court of criminal appea ls has enumer ated the following “funda mental err ors”: (1) denial of the rig ht
t o co u n s el; (2) denial of t he right t o a jury trial; (3) denial of t en day s’ prepara tion befor e trial for appointed counsel; (4) absenc e of jurisdiction over the defe n d ant; (5) absenc e of subject-matter jurisdiction; (6) prosec ution under a penal statute that does n ot comply with the Separa tion of Powers Section of the state constitution; (7) jury char g e err ors result i n g i n egr eg ious harm; (8) holding
t ri als at a location other than the county seat; (9) prosec ution under an ex post fac to law; and (10) c omments by

a trial judg e which ta int the presumption of innocenc e. Id . at 888-89. Our examination of the rec ord does not reve al any fundame ntal err or. The cler k’s

rec ord, which contains filings from both the municipal court and the county court at law proce eding s,

reve als that Renfro challeng ed many aspec ts of the trial proce ss including jurisdiction, the exis tence

Although the only admonishment reg arding the d an g ers of self-r epre sentation occur red 2 at the outset of his appea l to the county court at law, we conclu d e t h at t h e county court at law’s admonition reg arding the “dang ers and disadvantag es of self-r epre sentation” was n o t trial-cour t specific. I t suffice d to aler t Renfro to those dang ers and disadvantag es throug h his appea l to this Court. 3of probable cause fo r t h e traff ic stop, the evidentiar

y basis for the indictment, the applicability of the s afe ty belt statute, the circumstances of the pre sentation of a ple a bar g ain, and the impar tiality of the trial judge. T h e repor ter’s rec ord of the county court at law trial shows that the arr esting office r was the only witness. He testified that he saw Renfro driving a v eh i cl e o n a public street while not w ear ing a seat belt even though the vehicle was equipped with seat belts. Our revie w of the clerk’s and repor

ter’s recor ds to evalua te R enfr o ’s cl aims and other possible err ors reveals no fundame ntal err or.

We affir m the trial court’ s judgme nt.

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Affir med Filed: September

29, 2011 Do Not Publish

4