NOS. 12-12-00015-CR

 12-12-00016-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CIPRIANO ALVAREZ, JR., § APPEALS FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Cipriano Alvarez, Jr. appeals his convictions for indecency with a child and possession of 

child pornography. Appellant pleaded guilty and the trial court assessed punishment at twenty 

years of imprisonment 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.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he is 

well acquainted with the facts in these cases and has diligently reviewed the appellate records. In 

compliance 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 cases, and 

further states that Appellant’s counsel is of the opinion that the records 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 reviewed the records for reversible error and have found 

none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

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 appeals

are wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion to withdraw is hereby 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant 

wish to seek further review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either 

retain an attorney to file a petition 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 overruled by this 

court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the 

clerk for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in the case. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the 

requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered April 10, 2013.

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, 2013

NOS. 12-12-00015-CR

 12-12-00016-CR

CIPRIANO ALVAREZ, JR.,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

 

 Appeals from the 7th Judicial District Court

 of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.Nos. 007-0412-11; 007-0413-11)

 

THESE CAUSES came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there were no errors in the 

judgments.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, the judgments 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.