Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00608-CR
Juan Jose RAMIREZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 437th District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2006-CR-8683
The Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 15, 2013
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Juan Jose Ramirez pled nolo contendere
to the offense of assault with bodily injury of a security officer, a third degree felony. The trial
court, in accordance with the plea agreement, deferred a finding of guilt and placed Ramirez on
community supervision for a period of five years.
The State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision and a Motion to Supplement
the Motion to Revoke Community Supervision, alleging Ramirez had violated numerous
conditions of his community supervision. At the hearing, Ramirez pled true to the violations.
04-12-00608-CR
The trial court found Ramirez had violated the terms of his community supervision, adjudicated
him guilty, and sentenced him to five years confinement. Ramirez then perfected this appeal.
Ramirez’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in
which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is without merit. The brief
meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Counsel provided proof Ramirez was given a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was
informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Ramirez has not filed a brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel the appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Ramirez’s counsel and affirm
the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Ramirez wish to seek further review of
this case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he 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 must be filed within thirty days after either the day our judgment is
rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc
reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id.
R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Do Not Publish
-2-