Armando Ramirez v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-23-00191-CR

________________

ARMANDO RAMIREZ, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 22-04-05095-CR

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Appellant Armando Ramirez of the first-degree felony offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b), (h). Ramirez elected to have the trial court assess punishment, and the trial court sentenced him to fifty years of confinement.

Ramirez’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.

2

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 22, 2023, after Ramirez’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Ramirez to file a pro se brief. Ramirez filed a pro se brief in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief and a later-filed pro se response, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Ramirez’s pro se brief, and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to

3

re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON

Chief Justice

Submitted on December 20, 2023 Opinion Delivered February 14, 2024 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

1Ramirez may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.