Enrique Cuvillier v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

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,
2
agreement to stipulate, and judicial confession.
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 non-
frivolous 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