Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 13, 2005.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-04-01119-CR
____________
DAVID MICHAEL GLIDDEN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Austin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 04CR24248
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant was convicted of the offense of failure to identify and assessed a fine of $250 plus court costs on September 28, 2004.
Appellant is not represented by counsel on appeal. On January 13, 2005, this court ordered a hearing to determine whether appellant desired to prosecute his appeal. On February 10, 2005, the trial court conducted the hearing. The record of the hearing was filed in this court on February 16, 2005. The trial court found appellant was not indigent and was not entitled to a free record on appeal. No reporter=s record has been filed. Further, the court found appellant had the means to hire an attorney.
Rule 38.8 provides that we will not dismiss or consider the appeal without briefs unless it is shown the appellant no longer desires to prosecute his appeal or that he is not indigent and has failed to make necessary arrangements for filing a brief. It is clear that the rule was designed to protect an indigent appellant from the failure of his appointed counsel to provide a brief. The rule further provides that under appropriate circumstances, Athe appellate court may consider the appeal without briefs, as justice may require.@ Tex. R. App. P. 38.8 (b)(4).
A hearing has already been held as required under Rule 38.8. Because the trial court has already held one hearing to make the findings required under Rule 38.8, and we can find nothing in the rules or case law which requires this court to once again send this matter back to the trial court, we decline to do so. Therefore, we ordered appellant to file a brief in this appeal on or before March 20, 2006. In our order, we advised appellant that if he failed to file his brief, we would decide this appeal upon the record before the Court. See Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (affirming conviction on record alone where appellant failed to file a pro se brief after being properly admonished); Coleman v. State, 774 S.W.2d 736, 738-39 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (holding that former rule 74(l)(2) (now Rule 38.8(b)) permitted an appeal to be considered without briefs Aas justice may require@ when a pro se appellant has not complied with the rules of appellate procedure).
Appellant has not complied with our order of February 16, 2006. While we believe that no accused should be denied his right of appeal, we also believe that Ajustice requires@ that the exercise of this right of appeal must be held within the framework of the rules of appellate procedure. See Coleman, 774 S.W.2d at 738-39. We also believe that requiring any appellant to follow the rules does not infringe upon his rights of appeal. See id. We therefore find that justice requires that this appeal be determined without a brief.
This court has reviewed the entire record brought forth in this appeal and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 13, 2006.
Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Seymore.
Do not publish - Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).