## NO. 12

- 15

- 00286

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RUBEN DAVID RAMIREZ, JR., APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 2 ND

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEX AS

MEMORAND UM 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 Ga inous v. State

, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.
1969). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND 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 aba ndoned 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.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA 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 no2

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.

C ONCLUSION 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 judgm ent 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review
must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 Sch ulman , 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.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMEN T

FEBRUARY 1 5 , 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 ce rtified to the court

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley , J.