See T EX
. H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. § 4 81

. 11 2(a ), (b)( 1) (V ern on 20 03 ). 1 

### NUM BER 13-05- 519- CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

RA ND A LL B UR TON , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nt y C ou rt at L aw N o. 2 of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B ef o re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d V el a

Opin ion b y

Ju stice Ya ñe z A j ur y fo und app ell ant, Ran dal l Bur ton, g uil ty

of poss ess ing l ess than tw o ounc es of m ar i j ua na
. Th e j ur

y as s es s ed pu ni s hm en t at 60 da y s i n j ai l a nd a $ 50 0 fi ne
. W e affi r m. 1 Appel lan t fil ed hi s n oti ce of appeal on A ug ust 9, 2005. O n F e b ruary 6, 2006,T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38

. 8(b )( 3). 2
L o tt v . S ta te , 8 7 4 S .W .2 d 6 8 7 , 6 8 8 n .2 ( T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) ( d is c u s s in g th e p r e d e c e s s o r to r u le 3 38

. 8(b ))

. 2 app ellant f iled a “Motion to W ithdra w Counse l.” O n M a rc h 3 0, 20 06, the trial court condu cte d a h ear ing and deter mined that appel lan t had kn ow ing ly and int ell ig entl y

w aiv ed his rig ht to app ellate coun sel. T he trial court instructed app ellant to submit a brief w ithin thi rt y day s. Pr ior to the ex pir ati on of t hir ty day s, appel lan t re q uest ed and re cei v ed a 90- day
ex tens ion to file his br ief, t hus maki n g t h e b ri ef due on o r before A ug ust 1, 2006. On A u g u s t 1 , 2 0 0 6 , a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d and r e c e i v e d a 3 0
- d a y e x t e n s i o n t o fi l e h i s b r i e f. Th i r t y d a y s l a t e r , a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d thi s C o u r t t o r e v i e w h i s c a s e w i t h o u t a b r i e f,
c o n t e n ding that a back injury hind ered his ability to const ruct a brief . W e de nied this
re q uest on September

13, 2007. Appell ant did not res pond to this denial , and he ha s n ot fi l e d a b r i e f. W hen an appel lan t has not filed a br ief i n a cr imi nal cas e, the pr ov is ion s in Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Pr ocedu re 38.8( b) re q uir e the appel lat e cour t to re mand the c ase to t he tr ial co ur t t o c onduc t a hear ing and to “mak e appropr iat e findi ng s a nd r ecommendat ion s.” 2

“ H ow ev er , w he r e an a pp el l an t c ho os es t o ap pear p ro se and has been w ar ned of the d a n g e r s o f pr

o s e re pr esent ati on on appeal , ther e is no need to remand for a

. . . hear ing .” 3 Thoug h r ule 38.8 (b )( 4) st ates that an “ appel lat e co urt m ay cons ide r [an] appeal w it hout br iefs, as j ust ic e may

r eq uir e,” an a ppel lat e c our t’ s fr eedom of co nsi der ati on i s q ual ified by article 44. 33(b ) of

the cod e crimina l procedu re, w hich sta tes: Appel lan t’ s fai lur e to file his br ief in the ti me pr esc ri bed s hal l not a uthor iz e a dis mis sal of the a ppeal b y the Cou rt of Appeal s o r the C our t of C ri minal Appeal s, nor

sh all the Cou rt of A ppeal s or the Cou rt of C ri minal Appea ls , forT EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 44

. 33 (b) ( V ern on 20 06 ). 4 C ham ber

s v. N asco, I nc. , 5 0 1 U .S . 3 5 , 4 6 -5 0 (1 9 9 1 ); Kut ch v. D el Mar C ol l ege , 831 S. W

. 2d 5 06, 5 51 0-1 1 (T ex
. A pp
. –C orp us C hri s t i 19 92 , no w ri t ).

S e e L o tt , 874 S. W

. 2d a t 688

. 6
S e e S a l d a n o v . S ta te , 70 S

. W

. 3d 87 3, 88 7-8 8 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 02 ). 7 3 such rea son, ref use to conside r appe llant’s case on ap pea l. 4 T radition ally , an ap pellat e court’s inhe rent power to d ismiss a case is reserved f or those si tuati ons in w hic h a par ty has eng ag ed i n s er iou s mi sc onduc t s uch as bad- faith a buse of the judicial process. 5 App ellant has no t f iled a brief on his be half

in this app eal. Be y ond his fa ilure to f ile a br ief, w e c annot say

that he has eng ag ed in ser iou s misc onduc t or commit ted a bad- faith
a b u s e o f t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s
. W e t h e r e fo r e s u b mi t t e d h i s c a s e w i t h o u t t h e b e n e fi t o f b r i e fs and, in the i nter est of jus ti ce, r ev iew ed th e r ecor d. W hen an ap pellan t f ails to f ile a brief , an ap pellat e cou rt’s r eview of th e r e c o rd is limited to f und am ent al errors. T here are three cate gories of f und am ent al error: ( 1) errors 6 recogniz ed b y

the legislature as f und am ent al; (2) the vi olatio n of rig hts w hich are waiv able onl y ; and (3 ) the deni al of ab sol ute, sy ste mic r eq uir ements

. I n Sal dano v . St ate , the court 7 of cr imi nal appeal s e numer ated the f oll ow ing “fundamental err or s” : (1 ) deni al of the r ig ht to cou nsel; ( 2 ) d e n ial of the right to a jury

trial; (3) den ial of

ten da y s’ prepara tion b ef ore tr ial for a ppoi nted couns el; ( 4) absen ce of j ur is dic ti on ov er the defendant; (5 ) absen ce of subj ect -mat ter

j ur is dic ti on; ( 6) pr osec uti on unde r a pena l sta tute that does not c omply w it h the S epar ati on of Pow er s S ect ion of the stat e const it uti on; (7) j ur y ch ar g e er ro rs r esul ti ng in eg re g iou s h ar m; ( 8) hol din g tr ial s a t a loc ati on ot her than the count y

se at; (9 )See i d. at 888
- 89. 8
S e e L o tt , 874 S. W

. 2d a t 688

. 9 4 pr osec uti on unde r an ex pos t facto l aw ; and (10) comments bya tr ial judg e w hic h tai nt t he pr esumpt ion of inn ocenc e. 8 Our exa m inatio n of

the reco rd doe s not reveal una ssigned f und am ent al error. 9 Acc or din g ly , w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

LINDA REYNA Y

AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Publ is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 2 9th d ay

of Ma y , 200 8.