Gabriel Ramos v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-02-00053-CR
Gabriel RAMOS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1997-CR-3515
Honorable Mary Rom n, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 8, 2003

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Gabriel Ramos pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance in exchange for the State's recommendation that adjudication be deferred. There was no agreement as to a prison term should Ramos later be adjudicated guilty. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Ramos on community supervision. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging Ramos violated various conditions of his community supervision. Ramos pled true to one of the allegations, the trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to two years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - State Jail Division and fined him $500.00. Ramos timely filed a notice of appeal, stating his appeal was based in part on a jurisdictional defect. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).

Ramos's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel states Ramos was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Ramos filed a letter with the court; however, it does not raise any arguable grounds for appeal.

Article 42.12, section 5(b) provides that in a case involving a deferred adjudication no appeal may be taken from the trial court's decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); see Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). After a careful review of the record, we find no jurisdictional error and no appealable error in the adjudication proceeding. We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Ramos's counsel and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish