Court Opinion

ID: 9966148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 07:10:50.30453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:30.202922
License: Public Domain

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

          No. 02-23-00194-CR
     ___________________________

 LAMAR CANTRAIL AUSTIN, Appellant

                      V.

          THE STATE OF TEXAS

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

 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.
 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      By information, Appellant Lamar Cantrail Austin was charged with failure to

identify by intentionally giving a false name and that at the time of the offense, he was

a fugitive from justice, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.02(b),

(d)(2). The information also included a repeat offender notice consisting of a 2019

Class A misdemeanor conviction for the same offense.1 A jury convicted Austin of

the offense and assessed his punishment at a $4,000 fine and one year in jail. The trial

court sentenced Austin accordingly, and Austin appealed.2 Austin subsequently failed

to prosecute his appeal and, further, failed to keep this court and the trial court

informed of his whereabouts, so we submitted his case without briefs. We hold that

the record shows no fundamental error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                    I. Background

      Before trial, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Austin, but

Austin insisted on representing himself pro se notwithstanding the trial court’s

warnings about the inadvisability of proceeding without counsel. At trial, Austin

reaffirmed that he did not want an attorney and that he wanted to represent himself

      1
        The enhancement changed Austin’s range of punishment from a fine not to
exceed $4,000, confinement in jail for a term not to exceed a year, or both, id. § 12.21,
to a fine not to exceed $4,000, confinement in jail for a term of not more than one
year or less than 90 days, or both, id. § 12.43(a).
      2
       The jury convicted Austin of two offenses and assessed punishment on both.
Austin’s notice of appeal, however, identified only one of the two. We review only
the conviction for which he filed a notice of appeal.

                                           2
pro se despite the trial court’s admonitions to the contrary.        After hearing the

evidence, a jury found Austin guilty and assessed his punishment at a $4,000 fine and

one year in jail.

       After trial, Austin indicated that he wanted to appeal. The trial court urged him

to accept an appointed appellate attorney, but he declined the offer. Austin further

declined to sign a document that the trial court had handed him. Contextually, the

document appeared to have been a notice of appeal. The record does not contain the

form notice of appeal typically signed by a defendant. Austin was taken immediately

into custody.

       Twenty-eight days later, in a “Certificate of Proceedings,” the trial court set

Austin’s appeal bond amount at $500.           Another document with the same date

identified the conditions of any appeal bond that Austin might file, and one of those

conditions was that Austin had to provide the Tarrant County Community

Supervision and Corrections Department a “current, accurate residential address . . .

throughout the period of supervision and notify the . . . supervision officer of any

address change within five days from the date of the change.” Also on that same

date, Austin filed a handwritten pro se notice of appeal.

       Thereafter, the court reporter filed a fourteen-volume reporter’s record, and

the clerk filed a one-volume clerk’s record. Austin’s brief was due originally on

November 27, 2023. When Austin did not file an appellate brief, we reset his briefing

                                           3
deadline to December 27, 2023. But by January 8, 2024, Austin still had not filed an

appellate brief.

       Complicating the matter, our correspondence to Austin was returned by the

post office. Austin was not in the Tarrant County jail. 3 Although not entirely clear,

Austin appeared to have filed an appeal bond. We abated the appeal and remanded

the case to the trial court to determine, among other things, if it had any information

regarding Austin’s address or location. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2). As noted, one

of the conditions of any appeal bond was that Austin had to keep the probation

department apprised of his address. The trial court, however, responded that it had

no information regarding Austin’s whereabouts.

       In a criminal case, when an appellant does not file a brief, we cannot dismiss

the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(1). We can, however, submit the case without

briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4); McHenry v. State, No. 04-20-00015-CR, 2021 WL

260248, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 27, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem.

op., not designated for publication). We have done so in Austin’s case.

                                    II. Standard

       When considering a case without briefs, we review the entire appellate record

to determine if fundamental error exists. See Williams v. State, 654 S.W.3d 222, 223

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2022, no pet.). Fundamental errors include (1) the denial of

       The record contained Austin’s CID number. Tarrant County has a website on
       3

which inmates in the county jail can be located. See Tarrant County, Texas, Inmate
Search, https://inmatesearch.tarrantcounty.com (last visited Apr. 22, 2024).

                                          4
the right to counsel, (2) the denial of the right to a jury trial, (3) the denial of ten days’

preparation before trial for appointed counsel, (4) the absence of jurisdiction over the

defendant, (5) the 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 that taint the presumption of innocence. Savage v. State,

No. 02-21-00064-CR, 2022 WL 557488, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 24, 2022,

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

                                     III. Discussion

       At trial, Austin challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction. He maintained that he

was a Moorish National. Consistent with that assertion, Austin possessed an “Allodial

American National Identification Card” that identified his nationality as “Moor

American.” 4 Despite this evidence, the trial court asserted jurisdiction over both

Austin and his case.

       And the trial court did so correctly. The trial court, as a county court, had

jurisdiction to hear misdemeanor cases. Tex. Const. art. V, § 16; Tex. Gov’t Code

       4
        An “alodium” or “allodium” is defined as (1) “a form of estate among 11th
century Anglo-Saxons in which absolute possession and control were vested in the
holder—opposed to feodum” and (2) “land that is the absolute property of the owner:
real estate held in absolute independence without being subject to any rent, service, or
acknowledgment to a superior.”               Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alodium (last visited Apr. 22, 2024).
The identification card purportedly makes its possessor tax exempt.

                                              5
Ann. § 25.2223(a). The trial court thus had subject-matter jurisdiction. Turning to

personal jurisdiction, the indictment or information is what gives a trial court personal

jurisdiction over a defendant. See Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 628, 629 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2003) (“[T]he mere presentment of an information to a trial 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 trial court thus had personal jurisdiction over Austin.

      We have reviewed the appellate record and have found no fundamental error.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Baiyeri v. State, 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 224.

                                                      /s/ Wade Birdwell

                                                      Wade Birdwell
                                                      Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: May 2, 2024

                                           6