## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00194

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1695647

Before Sudde rth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. M emorandum Opi nion by Justice Birdwell 

### L

AMAR 

### C ANTRAIL 

### A USTIN 

### , Appellan t

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORAND UM OPINION
B y information , Appell ant Lamar Cantrail Austin was charged with failure to identify by intentionally giving a false name and that at the time of t he offense , he was a fugitive fro m justice , a Class A mi sdemeano r. See Tex. Pena l Code Ann. § 38 .02(b), (d)(2)

. The inf ormation also included a rep eat offender notice consisting of a 2019
C lass A misde meanor conviction for the same offense

. 1 A jury con v icted Austin of
the off ense and assessed his pu nishment a t a $4,000 fine and one y ear in j ail. The trial
court sentenced Austin a ccordingly, and A ustin appealed. 2 Austin su b sequently failed
to p rosecute his appeal and , further, failed to keep this co u rt and the trial court
inf ormed of his whereabouts , so we s u bmitted his case without briefs. We hold that
the record shows no fundamental error and affirm the trial court ’ s judgm ent.
I. B ackground Before trial, t he t rial court appointed an a ttorney to repr e sent Aus tin, but
Austin insisted on repre sent ing himself pro s e notwithstandin g th e t rial court ’ s warnings about the inadvisability of proceeding without couns el

. At tri al, Austin
reaffirmed that he did not want an attorn ey and that he wanted to represen t himself

1 The enhancem ent changed Austin’s range of punishment from a fine not t o exceed $4,000, con finem ent in jail for a term not to exceed a year, or both, id. § 12.21, to a fine not to exceed $4 ,000, conf i neme n t in jail for a ter m of not more than one year or less than 90 d ays , or both, id. § 12.43(a).

2 The jury convicted Austin o f two offenses and assessed punishme nt on both. Austin ’ s notice of appeal , however, identifie d only one of the two. We review o nly the conviction for which h e filed a notice of appeal.3 pro se despite the trial court’s admon itions to the contrary

. A fter hearing the
evidenc e, a jury found Austin guilty and assessed his punishmen t a t a $4,000 fine and one year in jail.
A fter trial , Austin indicated that he wanted to appeal. Th e trial court ur ged him to accept an appointed appellate attorney, but h e de clined the offer

. Austin further
de clined to sign a document that t he trial court had handed him. Contextually, the document appeared to have been a notice of appeal. The reco rd does not contain the
form noti ce of appeal typically sig ned by a defendant. Austin was taken im mediately into custody. Twenty

- e ight days later, in a “ Certificate of Proceedings, ” the trial court set Austin’s appeal bond amount a t $500. Another documen t with the same date
identifie d the conditions of any appeal bon d that Austi n might file, and one of those conditions was that Austin had to provide the Tarrant County Community Supervision and Corrections Department a “cu rrent, accurate residential addres s . . . throughout the period of supervision and notify the . . . supervision officer of a ny address change within five days from the date of the change.” Also on th at same date, Austin filed a handwritten pro s e notice of appeal.
T hereafter, the court r eporter fil ed a fourteen

- volume reporter ’ s re cord, and
the clerk filed a one

- volu me clerk ’ s rec ord. Austin ’ s brief was due originally on
N ovember 27, 2023. When Austin did n ot file an appellate brief, we reset his bri e fing4 deadline to De cember 27 , 2023. B ut b y Janua r y 8, 2024, Austin stil l had not filed an appella te brief

. Complicating the matter , our correspondence to Austin was retu rned by th e post office

. Austin wa s not in the Tarrant County jail

. 3 Although not entirely clear, Austin appeared to h ave filed an appeal bond. W e abated th e appe al and remanded
the case to the trial court to d et ermine , among other things, if it had any information regardin g Austin ’ s address or location. See Tex. R. App . P . 38.8 (b)(2). As noted, one
of the con ditions o f any appeal bond was that Aus tin had to keep the probation
de part ment apprised o f his address. T he trial court , however, re spon ded tha t it had no information regard ing Austin ’ s whereabouts

. In a criminal case, when an appella nt does not file a brief, we cannot dismiss the appea l. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)( 1 ). W e can, howeve r , submit the case without
briefs

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4 ) ; McHenry v. State , No. 04

- 20

- 000 15

- CR, 2021 WL 260248, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio J an. 27, 2021, no pet.) (pe r curi a m) (mem. op., not designated for public ation). We have done so in Aust i n ’ s case. II. S ta ndard
When consider ing a case without briefs , we review the entire appellate rec ord
to determine if funda mental error exists. See Williams v. State , 6 54 S.W.3d 222, 223 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2022, no pe t. )

. Fundamental errors include ( 1 ) the denial of

3 The record contained Austin ’ s CID number. Ta rrant County has a website on which inmates in the county jail can be l ocated. See Tarra nt County , Te xas, Inmate Sea rch, h ttps://inmatesearc h.tarrantc o unty .com (last visited Apr. 22 , 202 4).5 the right to counsel, (2) the denial of the righ t to a jury trial, (3) the denial of ten days’ preparation before trial for appointed counsel, (4) the absence of juris d iction over the defendant, (5) the absence of subject

- matter jurisdicti o n, (6) prosecution under a penal statute that does not comply wi th the Separation of Po wers sectio n of the state
constituti on, (7) jury charge errors resulting in egregious harm, (8) h olding trials at a location other than the county seat, (9) prosecution under an ex post facto law, and (10) comments by a trial judge t hat taint the presumpti on of innoc ence. Savage v. State , N o. 02

- 21

- 00064

- CR, 2022 WL 557488, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wor t h Feb. 24, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
I II. Discuss ion
A t trial, Austin challenged the tria l court ’ s ju risdiction. He ma intained that he
was a Mo orish National

. C onsiste nt with that assertion, Austin possessed an “ Allodi a l
American National Ident i fication Card ” that identified his national ity as “ M oor American. ” 4 Despite this evidenc e , the trial court as serted jurisdiction over both
Austin and his case. And t he trial court did so correctly . The trial court, as a county c ourt , had jur i sdiction to hear misdemeano r cases. Tex. Const. art. V, § 16; T ex. Gov’t Code

4 An “ alodium ” or “allodium ” is defined as (1) “ a form of estate among 11th century Anglo

- Sax ons in which absolute possession and control were vested in the holder

— op posed to feodum ” and (2 ) “ l and that is th e absolute property of the owner : real estate held in absolute independence without being subject to an y rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior

. ” Merriam

- Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.mer riam

- webst er.com/dictionary /alodi um (l ast visited A pr. 22 , 20 2 4)

. The identification card purpor tedly makes its possessor tax exempt.6 Ann. § 25.2223(a). The trial court t h us ha d subject

- matter ju risdic tion. Turning to
p ersonal jurisdiction, t he ind ictment or info rmation is what gives a tr ial c o urt personal j urisdiction over a defendant. S ee Ramirez v. State , 105 S.W.3d 628, 629 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ( “ [T] he mere presentment o f an information to a tri al court invests that court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant

. . . . ” ) ; Hess v. State , 953 S.W.2d 837, 840 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1997, pet. ref’d). Here, the State charged Austin by information. The tri al court thus had persona l jurisdiction over Austin

. We have revi ewed the appellate record and have found no fundamental error.
A ccor d ingly, w e affirm the trial court ’ s judgment. See Baiyeri v. Sta te , No. 02

- 22

- 00074

- CR, 2023 WL 7037624, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Oct. 26, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Williams , 654 S.W.3d at 22 4. /s/ Wade Birdw ell
Wa de Birdwell Justi c e D o Not Pub lish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b )
Delivered : May 2, 2024