Ramirez, Rogelio Ray v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 14, 2000
Docket13-99-00383-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Ramirez, Rogelio Ray v. State (Ramirez, Rogelio Ray v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ramirez, Rogelio Ray v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion



NUMBER 13-99-383-CR


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

ROGELIO RAY RAMIREZ

, Appellant,

v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 103rd District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N


Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez

Opinion by Chief Justice Seerden


Rogelio Ray Ramirez, appellant, appeals from his conviction for injury to an elderly person. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §22.04(a) (Vernon 1999). Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.(1) The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), that counsel present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

The record reflects that the trial court administered the proper admonishments to appellant. Appellant stated that he understood the admonishments. Appellant then pled guilty to the charge. He acknowledged that he knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea. The State then presented appellant's judicial confession and stipulation to evidence without objection. The court adjudicated appellant guilty of the crime and assessed punishment at five years imprisonment, according to the terms of the plea bargain and within the statutory range for the crime charged.

We have carefully reviewed the record and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice

Do not publish

.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

14th day of September, 2000.

1. A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ramirez, Rogelio Ray v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-rogelio-ray-v-state-texapp-2000.