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

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and Carter,* JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens

____________________

*Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Benjamin Ramer pled guilty to aggravated assault 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 allegations, and after additional evidence was admitted in support of the 

allegations, the trial court adjudicated Ramer’s guilt. After further evidence was received, the 

trial court sentenced Ramer to ten years’ imprisonment, with his sentence to run concurrently 

with the sentences he received in two other 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 case, 

provided a detailed summary of the evidence 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 professional evaluation of the record demonstrating 

why there 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. State, 573 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 motion to withdraw. His counsel 

also informed Ramer of his rights to review the record 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, 2022, 
3

we notified Ramer that his pro se brief was due on February 3, 2022. By letter dated 

February 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 independently determined that no 

reversible error exists. See Bledsoe 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, 2022

Do Not Publish

1Since we agree that this 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 desire 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 file a pro se 

petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from 

either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, 

see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. 

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

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.