Kyle Ramirez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 23, 2025
• Docket: 07-24-00158-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00158-CR

KYLE RAMIREZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 100th District Court Collingsworth County, Texas Trial Court No. 3094, Honorable Dale A. Rabe, Jr., Presiding

January 23, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Kyle Ramirez, appeals from the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt

and convicting him of sexually assaulting M.P., a child under the age of seventeen years

old. 1 In 2021, Appellant was indicted. In February 2022, he pleaded guilty; pursuant to

the terms of a plea bargain, Appellant received five years of deferred adjudication

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2), (f) (a second-degree felony). community supervision with conditions. In February 2023, the State filed its petition to

adjudicate guilt alleging eight grounds for revocation.

Appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s allegations that he failed to: (1) abstain

from the use or consumption of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances; (2) report

to his Community Supervision Officer each month; (3) follow additional conditions

imposed when a person transfers to another jurisdiction inside Texas; (4) failed to pay

court-ordered fees as directed; (5) complete community service as directed; (6) submit to

drug/alcohol testing and participate in and successfully complete related services; (7)

submit to a sex offender evaluation, and successfully complete psychological treatment

and counseling for sex offenders; and (8) pay a monthly sex offender fee. 2 The trial court

sentenced him to fifteen years of confinement. 3

Appellant timely brought this appeal. His court-appointed appellate counsel filed

an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). We grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant’s counsel has certified that after diligently searching the record, he has

conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record

2 Numbers 2, 7, 8, 11, 13, 18, 23, and 35 of the conditions were imposed by the trial court’s February

2022 order imposing conditions of community supervision. 3 The trial court first adjudicated Appellant guilty in August 2023.However, days later, the trial court granted Appellant’s timely-filed motion for new trial and motion in arrest of judgment undoing the conviction. Pedraza v. State, 69 S.W.3d 220, 223 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (“A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may file a motion for new trial after the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision, and if a new trial is granted the conviction itself will be undone.”). During a hearing on April 2024, Appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s allegations one through eight and was adjudicated guilty.

2 reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744-45; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant’s

counsel provided him with a copy of his Anders brief, motion to withdraw, and appellate

record. He also notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se response in addition to

informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter dated September 27, 2024, this Court also

advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief and

granted Appellant until October 28, 2024, to file such a response. To date, Appellant has

not filed a response.

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and conducted an independent

review of the record to determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. Like counsel, we conclude

there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous

v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Therefore, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 4

4 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after this Court grants counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.

3 Conclusion

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Lawrence M. Doss Justice

Do not publish.