Ramiro Nieto Reyes v. The State of Texas Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-15-00438-CR ____________________ RAMIRO NIETO REYES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-05094 ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this appeal, Ramiro Nieto Reyes’s1 appellate counsel filed a brief in which he contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support a decision reversing Reyes’s manslaughter conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.04 (West 2011). We have reviewed the record, and we agree with Reyes’s counsel that 1 The defendant is also known as Ramiro Nieto and Ramiro Reyes. 1 no arguable issues exist to support an appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Reyes pled guilty to manslaughter. At the conclusion of the hearing on his plea, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Reyes on community supervision for ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke, alleging that Reyes had violated three conditions of the trial court’s community supervision order. Reyes pled “true” to two of the alleged violations. After conducting a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, the trial court found that Reyes violated two of the conditions required of him by the trial court’s community supervision order. Based on these findings, the trial court found Reyes guilty and sentenced him to seven years in prison. Subsequently, Reyes filed a timely notice of appeal. In connection with Reyes’s appeal, Reyes’s appellate counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Reyes’s counsel concludes that no arguable errors exist that would support the filing of a merits-based brief in the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After receiving the Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Reyes an opportunity to file a pro se response. However, no response was filed. 2 After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Reyes’s counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusions that an appeal on the current record would be frivolous. Therefore, we conclude it is not necessary to order that new counsel be appointed to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). Given our conclusion that no arguable error exists to support Reyes’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on August 1, 2016 Opinion Delivered February 15, 2017 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 2 Reyes may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3
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.
