Ramirez v. State

Full title: CHRISTOPHER JOE RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi

Date published: Jul 20, 2006

No. 13-03-543-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 20, 2006)

Opinion

No. 13-03-543-CR

Memorandum Opinion Delivered and Filed July 20, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

Before Justices HINOJOSA, YAÑEZ, and GARZA.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by Justice YAÑEZ.

On April 19, 2001, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant, Christopher Joe Ramirez, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault.¹ The trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years and assessed a $4,000.00 fine. On November 22, 2002, the State moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging six violations of appellant's community supervision, including an allegation that appellant committed sexual assault on September 21, 2002.² Following a hearing on the State's motion, the trial court found appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision as alleged, adjudicated him guilty, and assessed his sentence at life imprisonment plus a $4,000.00 fine. Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this Court asserting there is no basis for appeal.³ We agree, and affirm the trial court's judgment.

1 See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2005).

2 See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2005).

3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Anders Brief

According to counsel's brief, he has reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record and has concluded that appellant's appeal is frivolous and without merit.⁴ The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal.⁵ In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. In the brief, appellant's counsel states that he has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.⁶ No such brief has been filed. Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, the appellate courts must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous."⁷ We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel's brief. We agree with appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.⁸ Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Motion to Withdraw

In accordance with Anders, counsel has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant.⁹ An appellate court may grant counsel's motion to withdraw filed in connection with an Anders brief.¹⁰ We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. We order counsel to advise appellant promptly of the disposition of this case and the availability of discretionary review.¹¹