Opinion issued October 28, 2004
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-03-01053-CR
____________
CARLOS R. QUINTEROS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Walker County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 00-387
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Carlos R. Quinteros, pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated on April 13, 2000. The trial judge assessed punishment at jail confinement for 180 days and a fine of $700, but suspended the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for two years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision. On August 27, 2003, the court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of community supervision and sentenced him to confinement for 180 days. Appellant’s counsel, Rosalind A. Kelly, filed a timely notice of appeal.
We abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on June 17, 2004 because Kelly informed the Court that she had not communicated with appellant since November 2003, although she had attempted to do so, and because only the clerk’s record had been filed in this Court.
The hearing on our abatement order was conducted in the trial court on July 21, 2004, and the reporter’s record of those proceedings has been filed. Kelly appeared for the hearing, but appellant did not. Kelly stated that she had no idea of appellant’s whereabouts. The trial judge found that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal.
According to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we may consider an appeal without briefs if the trial court has found that the appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Accordingly, we consider this appeal without briefs.
There is nothing but the clerk’s record presented for review. We have reviewed the record for fundamental error and find none. See Carroll v. State, 75 S.W.3d 633, 634 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.); Ashcraft v. State, 802 S.W.2d 905, 906 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no pet.); Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-09 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.).
We affirm the judgment.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Hanks, and Higley.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).