Enrique Cuvillier v. The State of Texas Appeal from 364th District Court of Lubbock County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-22-00135-CR ________________________ ENRIQUE CUVILLIER, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 364th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020-421,078, Honorable William R. Eichman II, Presiding December 21, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, Enrique Cuvillier, appeals his conviction for murder, 1 a felony of the first degree. In March 2022, he entered an open plea of guilty to murder. 2 After administering 1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(1). As part of his plea, appellant signed several plea papers, including a waiver of constitutional rights, agreement to stipulate, and judicial confession. 2 the requisite admonishments, the trial court accepted appellant’s plea. Following a punishment hearing during which appellant pled “true” to the enhancement allegation, the trial court sentenced him to a 70-year prison term. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders3 brief. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certified that he conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflected no arguable basis for reversing appellant’s conviction. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel explained why, under the controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. He further demonstrated that he complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by 1) providing a copy of the brief, motion to withdraw, and appellate record to appellant, 2) notifying appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and 3) informing appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter, this Court granted him an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel's brief. Appellant requested an extension of time in which to file his response, which this Court granted. The extended deadline was November 21, 2022. Despite the deadline’s lapse, the Court has received, to date, neither the response nor any other communication from appellant. 3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 2 We independently examined the record to determine whether there were any nonfrivolous issues supporting reversal as required by In re Schulman. None were found. So, after thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we 1) agree that there is no plausible basis for reversal of appellant’s conviction, 2) affirm the trial court’s judgment, and 3) grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 4 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 4 Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall 1) send appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment and 2) inform appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is only informational and ministerial. It does not encompass or require the rendition of legal advice or further representation. 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.
