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

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-97-00443-CR
Eleodoro Mora Ramos, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, 175TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 96CR5681, HONORABLE PHIL CHAVARRIA, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM

Appellant was tried on a three-count indictment accusing him of aggravated sexual assault of a child, indecency with a child by contact, and indecency with a child by exposure. A jury found appellant guilty of indecency with a child by contact and not guilty of the other alleged offenses. The jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for seven years and a $10,000 fine.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); 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 was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.

Appellant wrote a letter to the Clerk of this Court that we have treated as a pro se brief. In his letter, appellant complains that he did not fully understand the proceedings against him because the trial interpreter was inadequate and because his trial attorney did not explain the meaning of documents appellant was asked to sign. These contentions are not supported by the record. Appellant also urges that the evidence does not support his conviction because there were no "marks or signs" on the complainant's body. The complainant's testimony and that of the other witnesses, however, is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and Kidd

Affirmed

Filed: January 15, 1998

Do Not Publish