CARLOS PEDRO ALVAREZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 24th District Court of Refugio County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-07-00048-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG CARLOS PEDRO ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 24th District Court of Refugio County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Carlos Pedro Alvarez, attempts to appeal his conviction for money laundering. The trial court has certified that this is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal, and the defendant has waived the right of appeal. See TEX . R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). On January 21, 2010, this Court notified appellant s counsel of the trial court s certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification. On March 29, 2010, counsel filed a brief with this Court regarding appellant s right to appeal. On May 11, 2010, the State filed a responsive brief. The Court, having examined and fully considered appellant s brief and the State s brief, concludes that appellant s brief does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. See, e.g., State v. Moore, 240 S.W.3d 248, 253-54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. TEX . R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX . R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. Any pending motions are denied as moot. PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 29th day of July, 2010. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
