NUMBER 13-16-00490-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
FILIBERTO RAMON II A/K/A
FILIBERTO RAMON, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 197th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras
Appellant Filiberto Ramon II a/k/a Filiberto Ramon was convicted of robbery, a
second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02(a)(2) (West, Westlaw through
2017 1st C.S.). Because Ramon stipulated that he had previously been finally convicted
of a felony other than a state jail felony, the offense was enhanced to a first-degree felony,
and the jury sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. See id. § 12.42(b) (West,
Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Ramon’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief
stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). We affirm as modified.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
In his brief, Ramon’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the entire
record and “has concluded that any further proceedings on behalf of the defendant would
be wholly frivolous and without arguable merit.” See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of
Anders as it presents a thorough, professional evaluation showing why there are no
arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407
n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not
specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide
record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en
banc).
In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible
error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1) notified
Ramon that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Ramon
with copies of both pleadings, (3) informed Ramon of his right to file a pro se response,1
1The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
2
to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and to seek review if we conclude
that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) supplied Ramon with a form motion for pro se access
to the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. More
than an adequate time has passed, and Ramon has filed neither a motion for pro se
access to the record nor a pro se response.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found
no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the
issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the
court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”);
Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Ramon’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.)
(“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the
appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to
withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”)
(citations omitted)). We grant the motion to withdraw.
case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
3
We order counsel to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Ramon, and to
advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review, within five days of the date
of this opinion.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412
n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
IV. CONCLUSION
We note that the final judgment of conviction in this case states appellant’s name
as “Filiberto Ramon III A/K/A Filiberto Ramon” in the style of the case. However, the
record clearly shows that appellant’s name is actually “Filiberto Ramon II A/K/A Filiberto
Ramon.” Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect the correct name. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 43.2(b); Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (holding
that when an appellate court has the necessary data and evidence before it for
modification, the judgment may be modified on appeal).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified herein.
DORI CONTRERAS
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
4th day of January, 2018.
2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Ramon wish to seek further review by 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 from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of
Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4