Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00237-CR
David A. RAMIREZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of TexasAppellee
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13-07-11311-CR
The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 7, 2015
AFFIRMED
David Ramirez pled true to violating a condition of his deferred adjudication community
supervision. Ramirez’s guilt was adjudicated, and he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
Ramirez’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal
has no merit. Counsel provided Ramirez with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to
review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—
04-14-00237-CR
San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1996, no pet.). Ramirez did not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. 1 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s request to
withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should Ramirez wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals, Ramirez must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or Ramirez must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition
for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this
opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1
Counsel’s brief suggests that this court should consider reforming the judgment to delete the assessment of attorney’s
fees because Hidalgo is indigent. Because the trial court’s initial order of deferred adjudication also contained an
assessment of attorney’s fees, and Hidalgo did not appeal that order, any complaint regarding the assessment of the
attorney’s fees in this appeal is waived. See Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 320-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
-2-