Armando Ramirez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 359th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-23-00191-CR ________________ ARMANDO RAMIREZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22-04-05095-CR ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Appellant Armando Ramirez of the first-degree felony offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b), (h). Ramirez elected to have the trial court assess punishment, and the trial court sentenced him to fifty years of confinement. Ramirez’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 22, 2023, after Ramirez’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Ramirez to file a pro se brief. Ramirez filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief and a later-filed pro se response, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Ramirez’s pro se brief, and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to 2 re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 AFFIRMED. W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on December 20, 2023 Opinion Delivered February 14, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 1Ramirez may challenge our decision 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.
