Colbert v. State

Full title: KENNETH WAYNE COLBERT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston

Date published: Apr 30, 2009

No. 14-08-00706-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 30, 2009)

Opinion

No. 14-08-00706-CR

Opinion filed April 30, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 230th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 790824.

Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices YATES and FROST.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to life in prison. This Court affirmed his conviction. See Colbert v. State, No. 14 99 00987 CR, 2001 WL 578453 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] May 31, 2001, pet. ref'd). Appellant filed a motion for forensic DNA testing on November 19, 2007. On July 9, 2008, the trial court signed an order denying DNA testing, finding appellant had not shown that any evidence existed which would be exculpatory to appellant if DNA testing were performed. Appellant filed a timely, written notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.