Ramirez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ramirez v. State

476 S.W.2d 309, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2299

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 23, 1972

DocketNo. 44848

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 476 S.W.2d 309 (Ramirez v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal 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 v. State, 476 S.W.2d 309, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2299 (Tex. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the possession of heroin; the punishment, ten years imprisonment.

The appellant’s court-appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief which raises no ground of error and states “Counsel further finds there is no other error upon which a non-frivolous appeal might be based.” The record does not reflect that a copy of the brief was served upon the appellant as is required by Anders v. Calfornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); Holder v. State, 469 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Barber v. State, 471 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). This appeal will be abated until the record shows that there has been a compliance with the above cited authorities. See Simmons v. State, 475 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Ex parte [310]*310Grant, 476 S.W.2d 702 (Tex.Crim.App.1972).

For the reasons stated, the appeal is abated.

Opinion approved by the court.

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

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the possession of heroin; the punishment, ten years imprisonment.

The appellant’s court-appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief which raises no ground of error and states “Counsel further finds there is no other error upon which a non-frivolous appeal might be based.” The record does not reflect that a copy of the brief was served upon the appellant as is required by Anders v. Calfornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); Holder v. State, 469 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Barber v. State, 471 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). This appeal will be abated until the record shows that there has been a compliance with the above cited authorities. See Simmons v. State, 475 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Ex parte [310]*310Grant, 476 S.W.2d 702 (Tex.Crim.App.1972).

For the reasons stated, the appeal is abated.

Opinion approved by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 S.W.2d 309, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack