## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-21-00105- CR

MARIO RAMIREZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 276th District Court Titus County, Texas Trial Court No. CR20 557

Before Mo rriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

Mario Ramirez pled guilty to theft of a firearm, a state jail felony

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE

A

NN

. § 31.03(e)(4)(C). After a jury trial on punishmen t , Ramirez was sentenced to two years’

confinement in state jail

. Ramirez appeals. 1

Ramirez ’s attorney has filed a brief indicating that he has reviewed the record and has
found no genuinely arguable issues that coul d be raised on appeal. T he brief s e t s o ut the
procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial

court proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional eval uation of the reco rd
demonstrating wh y there are no arguable grounds to be advanced
, he has met the requirements of
Anders v. California

. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re Schulman , 252
S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Staf ford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503,

509

– 1 0 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. S t ate , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal.

On January 18 , 2022, counse l mailed to Ram i rez copies of the brief and the motion to

withdraw a n d informed Ramirez of his rights to review the appellate record and file a pro se

response. On February 9, this Court granted Ramirez’s motion for pro se access to the appellate

record a nd ensured Ramirez’s receipt of the record

. On April 1, we granted R a m irez’s motion

for an extension of time to file his pro se response and informed him that any pro se response

was due on or before May 2

. On May 16 , this Court further informed Ramirez that the case

1 In companion ca u se numbers 06

- 21

- 00106

- CR and 06

- 21

- 00107

- CR, Ramirez appeals his convictions for
aggr avated kidnapping and aggravated robbery.3 would be s et for submission on the briefs on June 6

. W e did not receive a pro se response from

Ramirez

. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, h ave determined that no arguable issue

supports an appeal. See Bled s o e v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In

the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial
court’s judgment. Id.

We a ffirm the judgment of the trial court. 2

Josh R. Morriss, III Chie f J u sti ce

Date Submitted: June 6, 2022 Date Decided: June 7, 2022

Do Not Publis h

2 Since we agree that t h i s case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant d esire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals , appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or fi le a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary revi e w (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or t he date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see T E X

. R

. A PP

. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of R ule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.