Opinion issued September 24 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 01008
- CR

——————————— DAVID SCOTT LINDSEY , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 209th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se 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 T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE §§ 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 appe al and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether appellant desired to prosecute his appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b)(2). At the abatement hearing, appellant stated that he no longer desires to prosecute his appeal. The supplemental

recor d 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38.8(b)(4 ) (p roviding that appellate court may consi der 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).
W hen 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). Fundamenta l 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.3 d 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) abs ence 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 h arm; (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 examinat ion of the trial court record reveals no fundamental error. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justice s Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b ).