Cipriano Alvarez, Jr. v. The State of TexasAppeal from 7th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOS. 12-12-00015-CR 12-12-00016-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS CIPRIANO ALVAREZ, JR., APPELLANT § APPEALS FROM THE 7TH 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. 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) 2 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. 3

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.