Armando Ramirez v. the State of Texas

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.

1
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

2
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Do Not Publish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.
3