Eric Ramirez v. State of Texas ( 2002 )

NO. 07-00-0542-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MARCH 8, 2002
______________________________
ERIC RAMIREZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY;
NO. B 3605-0008; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and JOHNSON, JJ.
Appellant Eric Ramirez appeals from his conviction for burglary of a habitation and
punishment of three years incarceration, which was suspended for 10 years. We affirm.
Appellant was charged by indictment in the 242nd District Court of Swisher County,
with burglary of a habitation. After having been given his Miranda warnings, appellant
gave Tulia police officers a written statement in connection with the alleged crime.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress the written statement. Following a pretrial hearing on
the motion to suppress, the trial court overruled the motion.
The case was tried to a jury. The jury found appellant guilty and sentenced him to
three years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with
a recommendation that the confinement be suspended. In accordance with the jury’s
recommendation, the trial court suspended imposition of the sentence as to imprisonment
and placed appellant on community supervision for 10 years. Appellant filed a Notice of
Appeal and Motion for New Trial. No hearing was requested or held on the Motion for New
Trial.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a Brief
in Support thereof. In support of the motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that, in
compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493
(1967), the record has been diligently reviewed and that in the opinion of counsel, the
record reflects no reversible error or grounds upon which a non-frivolous appeal can
arguably be predicated. Counsel thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has
set out a detailed analysis of the evidence demonstrating a conscientious review of the
record, and has memorialized his conversations with appellant in connection with the
appeal. Counsel has also attached exhibits showing that a copy of the Anders brief and
Motion to Withdraw have been forwarded to appellant, and that counsel has appropriately
advised appellant of appellant’s right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s
motion and brief. Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s motion and brief.
2
We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether
there are any non-frivolous grounds on which appeal could be predicated. See Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds. We agree that the
appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is granted. The judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
Phil Johnson
Justice
Do not publish.
3