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

No. 06

- 21

- 00117

- CR

BENJAMIN RAMER , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th District Court Fannin County, Texas Trial Court No. CR

- 20

- 27804

Befo re Morriss, C.J., Stevens and Carter , * JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens

____________________ *Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION
Pursuan t to a plea agreement, Benjamin Ramer pled guilty to aggrav ated assa ult with a deadly weapon, a finding on his guilt was deferred, and he was placed on ten years’ community supervision

. Several months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate his guilt. Ramer pled

true to two of the State’s allegatio n s , a n d af ter add itional evidence was admitted in support of the allegation s , the trial court adjudicate d Ramer’s guilt

. A fter further e vidence was received, the
tri al court sentence d Ramer to ten years’ imprisonment , with his sente nce to run concurrently
with the sentenc es he received in two ot her convictions adjudicated in the same proceeding

. Ramer appeals the judgment adjudicating his guilt

. Ramer ’ s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the c ase, provided a detailed summary of the evi dence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California , counsel has provided a pr ofession al evaluation of the record demonstrating why t h e r e are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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); Stafford v. State , 813 S. W.2d 503 , 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. Stat e , 5 73 S.W .2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Ramer ’ s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Ramer with a copy of the brief and the moti on to withdraw. H is counsel
also informed Ra mer of h is right s to review the r ecord and file a pro se response and provided
Ramer with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record

. By letter dated January 4 , 202 2 ,3

we notified Ramer that h is pro s e brief was due on February 3 , 2022. By let te r date d
Fe bruary 24 , 2022, we notified Ramer that the case would be submitted on briefs on March 17 , 2022. We did not receive a brief from Ramer

. We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have ind ependently determined that no
reversible error exi sts. Se e B ledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1

Scott E. Stevens Justice
Date Submitted: March 17, 2022 Date Decided: April 5 , 202 2
Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree that this case pr e sents n o r eversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from furt her representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counse l will be appointed. Should appellant desire to s e ek fur t her review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, a ppellant must eit her retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary revie w. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be fil e d w ithin thirty days from eit her the date of this opinion or the d ate on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see T EX . 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 Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4.