VINCENT RAMIREZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Fillmore

After Vincent Ramirez waived his right to a jury, the trial court found Ramirez guilty of burglary of a habitation and assessed punishment at seven years' imprisonment and $4200 in restitution.   Ramirez appealed the conviction.

Ramirez's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.   The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).   The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance.   See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978).   Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to Ramirez, and Ramirez filed a pro se response raising several issues.

We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and Ramirez's pro se response.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).   We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.   We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE