Richard Irenea Balangon v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00384-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

RICHARD IRENEA BALANGON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2
OF SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West

A jury convicted appellant Richard Irenea Balangon of assault family violence, a

class A misdemeanor. See TEX. PEN. CODE § 22.01(a), (b). A fine of $4,000 was assessed

with $3,000 probated upon successful completion of a domestic violence course. 1 On

1 Appellant was also assessed court costs of $310.
May 15, 2025, appellant filed a notice of appeal pro se. On October 15, 2025, the trial

court determined that appellant was not indigent and not entitled to court appointed

counsel. Appellant’s brief was due on December 1, 2025. Appellant never filed a brief.

The Clerk sent a past due brief notice to appellant, and we abated this appeal for the trial

court to determine (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and (2) whether

there are any changed circumstances rendering appellant indigent and entitling him to

court appointed appellate counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4). The trial court noticed

a hearing by traditional mail and email for February 27, 2026, appellant failed to attend,

and the trial court found appellant does not wish to prosecute his appeal and is not

indigent. Accordingly, we consider the appeal without briefs. See id.

When an appellant in a criminal case “fails to file a brief and we consider the case

without briefs, we review the entire appellate record to determine if fundamental error

exists.” Williams v. State, 654 S.W.3d 222, 223 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2022, no pet.).

Courts have recognized ten fundamental errors: (1) denial of the right to counsel; (2)

denial of the right to a jury trial; (3) denial of ten days’ preparation before trial for appointed

counsel; (4) absence of jurisdiction over the defendant; (5) 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 which taint the presumption

of innocence. Burton v. State, 267 S.W.3d 101, 103 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg

2008, no pet.) (citing Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 888–89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)).

Having reviewed the record, we find no fundamental error. See Williams, 654

2
S.W.3d at 223; Burton, 267 S.W.3d at 103. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

JON WEST
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
21st day of May, 2026.

3