Opinion issued September 24, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-01008-CR

———————————

DAVID SCOTT LINDSEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 209th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1281488

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, David Scott Lindsey, was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment 

after pleading guilty, without an agreed recommendation, to the felony offense of 

intent to deliver methamphetamine (4 to 200 grams). See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY 

CODE §§ 481.102, 481.112(a). Appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal.
2

After appellant’s retained counsel did not file a brief, we abated the appeal 

and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether appellant desired to 

prosecute his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). At the abatement hearing, 

appellant stated that he no longer desires to prosecute his appeal. The supplemental 

record includes the trial court’s finding that appellant no longer desires to 

prosecute his appeal. Based on the supplemental record, we ordered the appeal to 

be considered without briefs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4) (providing that 

appellate court may consider an appeal without briefs when trial court has found 

that the appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal, as justice may require); 

Ayala v. State, No. 01-13-00393-CR, 2015 WL 161788, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 13, 2015, no pet.) (considering appeal without briefs when 

trial court found that appellant no longer desired to prosecute appeal).

When we determine an appeal in a criminal case without the benefit of an 

appellant’s brief, our review of the record is limited to fundamental errors. See Lott 

v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); see also Burton v. State, 

267 S.W.3d 101, 103 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.) (discussing 

process of considering criminal appeal when defendant does not file brief). 

Fundamental errors include the following: (1) errors recognized by the legislature 

as fundamental; (2) the violation of rights that are waivable only; and (3) the denial 

of absolute, systemic requirements. Burton, 267 S.W.3d at 103 (citing Saldano v. 
3

State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 887–88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). The Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals has also identified 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 trial court record reveals no fundamental error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).