Ramirez, Rogelio Ray v. State

NUMBER 13-99-383-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

ROGELIO RAY RAMIREZ

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez

Opinion by Chief Justice Seerden

Rogelio Ray Ramirez, appellant, appeals from his conviction for injury to an elderly person. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §22.04(a) (Vernon 1999). Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.⁽¹⁾ The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), that counsel present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

The record reflects that the trial court administered the proper admonishments to appellant. Appellant stated that he understood the admonishments. Appellant then pled guilty to the charge. He acknowledged that he knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea. The State then presented appellant's judicial confession and stipulation to evidence without objection. The court adjudicated appellant guilty of the crime and assessed punishment at five years imprisonment, according to the terms of the plea bargain and within the statutory range for the crime charged.

We have carefully reviewed the record and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice

Do not publish

.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

14th day of September, 2000.

1. A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.