Thomas Alberto Ramirez v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00878-CR

Thomas Alberto RAMIREZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. CRW2201006 Honorable Jennifer Dillingham, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 29, 2025 AFFIRMED After representing himself at a jury trial, Thomas Alberto Ramirez was found guilty of assaulting a public servant. He then agreed to a punishment of five years’ imprisonment and was sentenced accordingly by the trial court. Ramirez then filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Ramirez’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes

04-24-00878-CR

that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. In compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel certified that he served copies of the brief and motion to withdraw on Ramirez, informed Ramirez of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief, and explained to Ramirez the procedure for obtaining the record. This court subsequently set a deadline for Ramirez to file a pro se brief. Ramirez then requested a copy of the record, which this court provided to him. Subsequently, Ramirez filed a pro se brief, and the State filed a brief in response.

We have reviewed the appellate record, the Anders brief, Ramirez’s pro se brief, and the State’s brief. We conclude that there are no arguable grounds for appeal, and the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or pro se response, but should only determine if the appeal is frivolous). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Ramirez wish to seek further review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or from “the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by the

3

04-24-00878-CR

court of appeals.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

Adrian A. Spears II, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH