Ruben David Ramirez, Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 2nd District Court of Cherokee County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-15-00286-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS RUBEN DAVID RAMIREZ, JR., APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 2ND V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Ruben David Ramirez, Jr. appeals his punishment for retaliation and assault of a public servant. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with retaliation, assault of a public servant, and felony driving while intoxicated. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the State abandoned the felony driving while intoxicated charge, and Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the remaining charges. Appellant further waived his right to appeal the findings of guilt. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for six years in each case. The trial court certified Appellant’s right of appeal as to punishment only. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he has reviewed and considered the record and found no reversible error. He further opines that this appeal is frivolous. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.1 We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error regarding Appellant’s punishment. CONCLUSION As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered February 15, 2017. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 1 Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed. 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT FEBRUARY 15, 2017 NO. 12-15-00286-CR RUBEN DAVID RAMIREZ, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 2nd District Court of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 19425) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
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.
