Opinion
No. 05-10-00414-CR
03-07-2012
RANDY DALE GIBSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; Opinion issued March 7, 2012
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2007-2-1400
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, O'Neill, and Fillmore
Opinion By Justice Bridges
Appellant Randy Dale Gibson appeals his conviction, following a trial by jury, for criminal trespass and accompanying fine of $1,000.00. Prior to his jury trial, appellant had retained two attorneys to represent him in this matter. Both attorneys filed motions to withdraw, which were granted by the trial court. The trial court then appointed attorney F.B. Larrea to represent appellant at trial, but ordered repayment of legal costs because appellant “has financial resources that enable him to offset in whole the costs of legal services that will be incurred on his behalf.” Following appellant's conviction, Larrea filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The order was granted by the trial court. Appellant then filed his pro se notice of appeal.
Pursuant to this Court's order of April 27, 2010, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine appellant's indigency status, and appellant refused to supply the trial court with documentation to support his claim of indigency. By order dated June 8, 2010, this Court adopted the findings of the trial court and concluded appellant was not indigent. We, therefore, denied appellant's motions to appoint counsel. Further, this Court ordered the court reporter to file the reporter's record or written notice of non-payment within thirty days from the date of the order.
Because this Court had previously determined appellant was not indigent, this Court issued an order denying appellant's motion to waive appeal bond and other related fees on June 29, 2010. This Court further ordered the court reporter to file the record by July 30, 2010.
On August 31, 2010, this Court denied appellant's “motion to order trial court to include requested supplement to clerk's record.” No reporter's record was filed. Therefore, on November 1, 2010, this Court issued an order, requiring the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the reporter's record due to ineffective counsel, indigence, or any other reason. We abated the appeal, pending the trial court hearing. During the hearing, appellant acknowledged that he had not contacted one of the reporters to request the record. The second reporter testified she told appellant, via e-mail, the price for the record and had not heard from appellant since that e-mail transmission. The reporter testified that any delay in filing her portion of the record was a result of not being asked to prepare any kind of record for submission to the appellate court.
On December 9, 2010, we reinstated the appeal and adopted the following findings of the trial court: (1) appellant desires to pursue his appeal; (2) appellant is not indigent and has not retained counsel to represent him on appeal; (3) appellant is not entitled to proceed without payment for the reporter's record; and (4) appellant has not requested the reporter's record or paid for the record and “has no intention to pay for preparation of the reporter's record.” We ordered the appeal to be submitted without the reporter's record and ordered appellant to file his brief by January 21, 2011. We also denied appellant's October 21, 2010 motion for judicial notice.
Because appellant had not filed his brief, on March 2, 2011, we ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant's brief had not been filed. We abated the appeal, pending hearing. On March 31, 2011, this Court reinstated the appeal and adopted the trial court's findings that: (1) appellant is not indigent; (2) appellant has not retained counsel and is representing himself in this appeal; (3) appellant is not sure whether he wants to continue the appeal; and (4) appellant has not filed the brief because “there are issues with it that [he does] not know how to address.” We ordered appellant to file his brief by April 18, 2011.
On April 11, 2011, appellant filed his brief. We note that appellant's brief does not comply with the briefing requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. It does not contain: a list of parties; a table of contents; reference to issues in the table of contents; an index of authorities; a concise statement of the case; the course of the proceedings; the trial court's disposition; a concise statement of the issues presented for review; a concise statement of facts; a concise statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief; citations to authority; citations to the record; and a short conclusion that states the nature of the relief sought. See id.
On April 11, 2011, this Court notified appellant that his brief did not meet the general requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. Appellant was directed to file, within ten days of the date of the Court's letter, an amended brief that corrected the identified deficiencies. Appellant was further notified that if no amended brief was filed within the specified time, the appeal would be submitted on the deficient brief, subject to the provisions of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9. Appellant has failed to file an amended brief and, thus, the appeal was submitted on appellant's deficient brief. Appellant's brief requests this Court to take judicial notice of forty-five separate items. We conclude appellant's brief has failed to present any issue for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Appellant's brief fails to support his requests for judicial notice with any authority and has provided this court with no analysis of any relevant law as it applies to the facts of this appeal. See id. Appellant has, therefore, provided this Court with nothing to review. See Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
100414F.U05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
RANDY DALE GIBSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-10-00414-CR
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Grayson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 2007-2- 1400).
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices O'Neill and Fillmore.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered March 7, 2012.
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE