Jose A. Bribiesca-Ramirez v. State

Opinion issued July 7, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-16-00002-CR

———————————

JOSE A. BRIBIESCA-RAMIREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1441994

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jose A. Bribiesca-Ramirez pleaded guilty without an agreed punishment

recommendation to the felony offense of possession with intent to deliver a

controlled substance with an aggregate weight of 440 grams or more. See TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(a) (West 2010). The trial court accepted

the plea and after a presentence investigation hearing, sentenced appellant to 30

years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. See id. §

481.112(f). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is

without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.

1396 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal

authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed

the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Appellant requested and was provided access to a copy of the record and his

pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief was due on May 9, 2016. Appellant filed

no response and requested no extension of time.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at

2

1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,

300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court

determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note

that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for

appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.1 Attorney Joseph W. Varela must immediately send appellant the

required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1

Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal

and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

3