Carlos Ramirez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of El Paso County

Annotate this Case
Criminal Case Template

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

 
CARLOS RAMIREZ,

Appellant,

 

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

Appellee.

 

 

 

 

No. 08-02-00325-CR

 

Appeal from the

 

County Court at Law No. 1

 

of El Paso County, Texas

 

(TC# 20010C03709)

 
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carlos Ramirez was convicted of driving while intoxicated--second offense upon his plea of guilty. In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Ramirez to 270 days in jail and ordered him to pay a $750 fine. The sentence of confinement was suspended, and Ramirez was placed on community supervision for two years. The State later filed a motion to revoke Ramirez's community supervision. Ramirez pleaded true to the allegations that he committed a subsequent offense and that he drove a car that was not equipped with a deep lung interlock device. The trial court found that Ramirez violated the terms of his community supervision and sentenced him to 270 days in jail. We affirm.

Ramirez's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), by advancing a contention that might arguably support the appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to Ramirez, and he has been advised of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the contention advanced in counsel's brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

The judgment is affirmed.

 

SUSAN LARSEN, Justice

May 22, 2003

 

Before Panel No. 3

Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and Chew, JJ.

 

(Do Not Publish)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.