MICHAEL ALVAREZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-09-00476-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG MICHAEL ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Vela Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez Appellant Michael Alvarez challenges his conviction for family violence assault, a third-degree felony, for which he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. See TEX . PENAL CODE ANN . ยง 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2009). By two issues, Alvarez argues that the trial court erred in (1) allowing hearsay evidence, and (2) admitting prior acts of misconduct. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Alvarez was indicted as follows: [T]hat [Alvarez], on or about February 24, 2008, . . . did then and there intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause bodily injury to Alice Alvarez, a member of the defendant's family or a member of the defendant's household, . . . by placing her in fear of serious bodily injury and causing her bodily injury and causing her bodily injury and pain [sic]. See id. The indictment also alleged that Alvarez had been previously convicted of family violence assault in June 2007. Alvarez pleaded not guilty to the charge, and the case was tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the trial court sentenced Alvarez to four years' incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal ensued. II. DISCUSSION By two issues, Alvarez complains of the admission of hearsay and prior acts of misconduct. However, aside from the general assertion of his issues, we are unable to discern the exact nature of Alvarez's arguments because, in his brief, he does not direct the Court to the portions of the record that contain the alleged errors, if any, by the trial court and provides no substantive legal analysis of his apparent complaints. See TEX . R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Segundo v. State, 270 S.W.3d 79, 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (op. on reh'g) (citing Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)) (other citations omitted) (explaining that it is not a reviewing court's responsibility to wade through 2 the record in an attempt to verify an appellant's claims). The substance of Alvarez's argument is not apparent from his statement of facts. And the argument portion of his brief consists almost entirely of block quotes from cases without any attendant analysis that would aid the Court in deciphering Alvarez's arguments. See Busby v. State, 253 S.W.3d 661, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding that a reviewing court has "no obligation to construct and compose appellant's issues, facts, and arguments"). We therefore conclude that Alvarez has inadequately briefed his issues on appeal and thus waived any review by this Court. See Garza v. State, 290 S.W.3d 489, 491 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2009, pet. ref'd). Alvarez's issues are overruled. III. CONCLUSION The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ Justice Do not publish. TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 5th day of August, 2010. 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.
