### NUMBE R 1 3 - 0 5 - 0 0 2 4 1 - 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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ R O D N E Y L Y N N W O O T E N , A p p e l l a n t,
v . TH E S TA TE O F TE XA S, A ppel l ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ O n appeal f r om t he 26 8t h D i st r i ct C our t of For t B end, Texa s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Rod ney Ly nn W ooten, appel lan t, w as conv ic ted for th e offense of inj ur y to a c hil d. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.04 (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. Hi s s entenc e w as ass ess ed at confine ment for tw o y ears. On Febr uar y 4, 2005, the t ri al cour

t s uspen ded t he i mposi ti on of the s entenc e and pla ced appel lan t on communi ty su per v is ion for tw o y ears. Appel lan t filed a no ti ce of appeal on M ar ch 7, 20 05.2

T his Court w as no tif ied by the court repo rter tha t app ellanthad failed to pay or ma ke arrangem ent s to pay the fee to prepa re the re p orter’s record. On Octo ber 6, 2 005 , this Cou rtabat e d t h e c a se so thatthe tr ial co urt c oul d c onduc t a hear ing and deter mine
w hether the appel lan t ( 1) des ired to prosec ute his a p p e a l a nd ( 2) w as ind ig ent o r if not in d ige n t, w hether

co unsel had abandoned the appeal

. The tr ial co urt c onduc ted t he hear ing , w hic h appel lan t at tended, and found that appel lan t w as not indi g ent and that he
w is hed to conti nue his appeal

. The repor ter ’s record, ho w ev er , w as not fil ed after the tr ial
co u rt ’s h e a rin g. On M ar ch 23, 2 006, thi s C our t aba ted t he c ase for a sec o n d t im e so thatthe tr ial court cou ld cond uct a hearing on the same issues as no ted in the prior aba tem entorder. The tr ial courtconduct ed a sec ond heari ng , w hic h appell ant did not a ttend , and found that appel lan t w as not ind ig ent and that he w is hed to cont inu e his appeal

. Fur ther more, the
cour t repor ter testi fied that the appell ant had not m ade anyarrang ements for p ay ment of the record. This C our

t’ s two a ttempt s t o obt ain the re por ter ’s record hav e been futil e. Addi ti onal ly , app ell ant h as not fil ed a br ief. H a ving giv en appe ll ant a mple noti ce and oppor tuni ty to cure the record defic ien ci es, the appeal i s s ubmit ted for dec is ion w it hout a re por ter 's record and w it hout br iefs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3( c) (1 ). I n the i nterestof jus ti ce, w e w il l re v iew

the cl er k’ s record. W hen an ap pellan t fails to f ile a brief , an ap pellat e co u rt ’s r eview of the reco rd is li mite d to fundamental er ro rs . See Lott v. Sta te , 874 S.W .2d 687, 688 n.2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994)

. There are three c ateg or ies of fundamental er ro r: ( 1) er ro rs recog niz ed by the leg is lat ure as fundamental; (2 ) v iol ati on of r ig hts w hic h are w aiv abl e onl y ; and (3 ) the d eni al3

of absol ute, sy ste micreq uirements

. See Salda no v . St ate , 7 0 S

. W

. 3 d 8 7 3 , 8 8 7 -8 8 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2002)

. In Saldano , t he c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s e numerated the fol low ing “ fundamental
er ro rs ”: ( 1) deni al of the r ig ht t o couns el; (2 ) deni al of the r ig ht t o a j ur y tr ial ; ( 3) deni al of ten d ay s’ preparati on before tr ial for a ppoi nted couns el; (4 ) absen ce of jur is dicti on ov er the defendant; (5 ) absen ce of subj ect -mat ter j ur is dicti on; (6 ) prosec uti on unde r a penal st atute tha t doe s not com ply w ith the sepa ration of powers section of

the sta te con stitutio n; (7) jury charg e er ro rs resul ti ng i n egre gio u s h a rm; ( 8) hol din g tr ial s a t a loc ati on ot her than the
co u n ty se a t; (9 ) p ro se cu ti o n u n d e r a n e x p o st fa ct o la w; a n d (1 0 ) co m m e n ts by a t ria l ju d ge
w hic h tai nt t he presumpt ion of inn ocenc e. See i d. at 88 8- 89. O u r e x am inatio n of

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

RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 26t h day

of June, 2008.