## NO S . 12

- 12

- 00 0 15

- C R 12

- 12

- 0001 6

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CIPRIANO ALVAREZ, JR. , § APPEAL S FROM THE 7 TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Cipriano Alvarez
, Jr. appeals h is conviction s for indecency with a child and possession of child pornography

. Appellant pleaded guilty and the trial court assessed punishment at twenty years of imprison ment and ten years of imprisonment, respectively, the sentences to run concurrently . Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm

.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating that he is
well acquainted with the facts in these case s and has diligently reviewed the appellate record s . In complia nce with Anders
, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case s , and further states that Appellant’s counsel is of the opinion that the record s reflect no reversible error and counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.2

Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised six issues concerning ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. We have rev iew ed the record s for reve rsible error and have found

none

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal s

are wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion to withdraw is her eby granted , and the trial court’s judgments are affirmed

. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408

- 09. Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary
review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant
wish to seek further review of th ese case s by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a pe tition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the date the last timely filed motion for rehearing is over ruled by this

court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must b e filed with the
clerk for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in the case. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3 (a) . Any petition for disc retionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4;
In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered April 10 , 201 3

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)3 

### COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 10 , 201 3

NO S . 12

- 12

- 00 0 15

- CR 12

- 12

- 0001 6

- CR

CIPRIANO ALVAREZ, JR. ,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal s from the 7 th Judicial District Court
of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No s

. 007

- 0412

- 11; 007

- 0413

- 11 )

TH E S E CAUSE S came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion o f this court that there w ere no error s in the judgment s

. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant ’ s counsel ’s motion to withdraw is granted
, the judgment s of the court below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.