NUMBER 13-10-00327-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

RAUL SALAZAR, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 404th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

A jury found appellant Raul Salazar guilty of possession of marihuana, a 

third-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ' 481.121(a), (b)(4) (West 

2010). After assessing punishment at five years in the Texas Department of Criminal 
2

Justice—Institutional Division, the trial court suspended the sentence and placed Salazar 

on community supervision for five years. We affirm.

Salazar filed his notice of appeal on May 14, 2010. Appellant=s brief was 

originally due to be filed on March 2, 2011. On June 16, 2011, this Court abated the case 

and remanded it to the trial court to determine whether Salazar desired to prosecute this 

appeal; why Salazar's counsel had failed to file a brief and whether counsel had 

effectively abandoned the appeal; whether Salazar had been denied effective assistance 

of counsel; whether Salazar's counsel should be removed; and whether Salazar was 

indigent and entitled to court-appointed counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). The 

trial court held a hearing on August 11, 2011 and found that Salazar wished to pursue his 

appeal and was not indigent, and granted Salazar’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. The 

trial court directed Salazar to hire a new lawyer and file an appellate brief.

On September 29, 2011, the Clerk of this Court directed Salazar to notify us if he 

had obtained counsel. On December 2, 2011, having received no response, we ordered 

Salazar to file his appellate brief by January 6, 2012. This Court also advised Salazar 

that if he failed to file his brief, we would decide this appeal upon the record before us. 

See Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Coleman v. State, 774 

S.W.2d 736, 738-39 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.). Salazar has not 

filed a brief or any other response. We, therefore, have submitted Salazar's case without 

the benefit of briefs and, in the interest of justice, have reviewed the record. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(b)(4).
3

When an appellant fails to file a brief, an appellate court's review of the record is 

limited to the following categories of fundamental errors: (1) errors recognized by the 

legislature as fundamental; (2) the violation of rights, which are waivable only; and (3) the 

denial of absolute, systemic requirements. Burton v. State, 267 S.W.3d 101, 103 (Tex. 

App.—Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.) (citing Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 887-88 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Lott, 874 S.W.2d at 688)). The court of criminal appeals has 

enumerated the following fundamental errors: (1) denial of the right to counsel; (2) 

denial of the right to a jury trial; (3) denial of ten days' preparation before trial for appointed 

counsel; (4) absence of jurisdiction 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 state constitution; (7) jury charge errors resulting in 

egregious harm; (8) holding trials at a location other than the county seat; (9) prosecution 

under an ex post facto law; and (10) comments by a trial judge which taint the 

presumption of innocence. Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 888-89; Burton, 267 S.W.3d at 103.

Our examination of the record reveals no fundamental error. See Burton, 267 

S.W.3d at 103. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 15th

day of March, 2012.