£0 (&aurt of Appeals Txfi\[ iBtstrirt of (E*xas at Sallas JUDGMENT CHARLES WILLIAM RANDLES, Appeal from the 283rd District Court of Appellant Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F87- 70227-T).

No. 05-91-01505-CR V. Opinion delivered per curiambefore Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Maloney and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Hankinson.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered November 20, 1996.

/f^rt^X^ WA^^i^gy**-^ DEBORAH G. HANKINSON JUSTICE Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 20, 1996

In The Court of Appeals JTtftlr iBtstrirt of ©eseas at Dallas No. 05-91-01505-CR

CHARLES WILLIAM RANDLES, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F87-70227-T

OPINION PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Maloney and Hankinson Charles William Randies appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine.

Punishment was assessed at eight years in prison.

On August 23, 1996, we ordered the trial court to conduct ahearing to determine whether appellant desired to pursue his appeal, and if so, to determine whether appeUant was indigent and entitled to appointed counsel.

On October 28, 1996, we received the supplemental transcript containing the trial ... i^J^^#?.l^^^&ft^>l^?*

court's findings of fact and recommendations. The trial court found that appellant was served notice of the hearing by serving him at 701 Cherry Lane in White Settlement, but appellant did not appear at the hearing. Based on appellant's failure to appear, the trial court concluded appellant no longer wishes to pursue his appeal and recommended dismissing the appeal.

The supplemental transcript also contains the affidavit of Regina Grimes, assistant general counsel for the Legal Affairs Division for the Parole Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Ms. Grimes stated that appellant was declared an absconder and a prerevocation warrant was issued for his arrest on August 26, 1996.

We adopt the trial court's determination that appellant no longer desires to pursue his appeal. Because no brief has been filed, no contentions of error are properly before us for review.1 Our examination of the record does not disclose any fundamental error.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 90 911505F.U05

1Appellant's retained counsel Ross Teter filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous and without merit. See AnA,r<l CaTfornia 386 US 738 (1967). The Court, however, struck the brief on July 30, 1996 because the procedural Xu"^ SA&ply IJ^V** to represent an indigent appellant, not to retained attorney, See Jeffery , State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.).