IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-19-00264-CR
ADRIAN ANDRES RAMOS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015-705-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The jury convicted Adrian Ramos of the offense of sexual assault, and the trial
court assessed punishment at three years confinement. The trial court suspended
imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed Ramos on community
supervision for five years. The State filed a motion to revoke alleging thirteen violations
of Ramos’s community supervision. The trial court held a hearing on the motion to
revoke, and Ramos pleaded true to eleven of the violations. The trial court found eleven
of the allegations to be true, revoked Ramos’s community supervision, and assessed
punishment at three years confinement. We affirm.
Ramos’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently
reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Ramos of his right to submit a
response on his own behalf. Ramos did not file a response. Counsel's brief evidences a
professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed
the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal
is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v.
Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this
appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Ramos is
granted. Additionally, counsel must send Ramos a copy of our decision, notify Ramos of
his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter
Ramos v. State Page 2
certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4.
TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
JOHN E. NEILL
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed November 27, 2019
Do not publish
[CR25]
Ramos v. State Page 3
Adrian Andres Ramos v. State
Combined Opinion