Joe Ray Alvarez v. State ( 2015 )

Opinion issued July 7, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00368-CR
———————————
JOE RAY ALVAREZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 176th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 600516
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant, Joe Ray Alvarez, guilty of the offense of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a) (Vernon
2011). After finding true the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs that
appellant had been twice previously convicted of felony offenses, it sentenced him
to life in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2014).
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal
is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly
reviewed the record and is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants
reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193
S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant has filed a pro se response, contending that (1) the State did not
timely file an indictment; (2) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; and (3) his
trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at
1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
2
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court
determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note
that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for
appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. 1 Attorney, Patti Sedita, must immediately send appellant the required
notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
3