No. 01-07-00940-CR
Opinion issued January 8, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. SEE TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 230th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 420235.
Panel consists of Justices KEYES, ALCALA, and BLAND.
ELSA ALCALA, Justice.
Appellant, Richard Wayne Davison, appeals from the denial of his Motion for Forensic DNA Testing of Evidence. Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has submitted a brief stating his professional opinion that the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Appellant filed a pro se response. In his response, appellant contends that the trial court never had jurisdiction over his underlying offense, that no formal charges were ever filed for the underlying offense, and "that the public interest was directly and adversely affected by the actions of the prosecutor." We affirm.
Background
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the felony of aggravated robbery that resulted in the death of Travis Eugene Churchill. The jury found him guilty and, in 1985, the jury determined his sentence at 75 years in prison. We affirmed the conviction on July 31, 1986. See Davison v. State, No. 01-85-00824-CR, 1986 WL 20863 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 31, 1986, pet. ref'd). In our opinion, we stated, At trial, Shoulders testified that on the evening of September 27, 1984, appellant called him and later picked him up at about 8:00 a.m. in appellant's BMW. Together they went to the home of appellant's sister, and appellant went inside to borrow his sister's van. He returned with the keys and removed a blue duffle bag from the trunk of the BMW. Together they got into the van and went to pick up Warren Thomas and a fourth man known only as "Ron." Appellant then drove them to Kirby Drive to "get something." The four observed a clothing store for a time, waiting for the staff to close and exit in order to rob them. The people never came out[.] . . . Appellant then told Thomas that there were two men in a lot on Kirby. Appellant opened the duffle bag and withdrew a gun which he handed to Thomas. The two got out of the van and departed. Shoulders remained in the van with Ron. He heard three shorts fired. Thomas and appellant then returned to the van, appellant to the driver's seat. Id. at *1. The opinion also stated, Cooper testified that he had obtained the gun from O'Bannon. He stated that appellant took the gun from a blue duffel bag and gave it to O'Bannon in Cooper's presence. Cooper further testified that on September 28, appellant told him that he and Thomas had tried to rob two men in a car lot on Kirby. Appellant said that Thomas had approached one for a light, that Thomas was going to leave, so appellant had to make Thomas use the revolver. When one of the victims was not going to give up his jewelry, Thomas shot him. Id. The opinion further stated that the mother of appellant's girlfriend testified that "appellant said that he did not know that Thomas was going to shoot him and the gun was appellant's." Id. at *2. Appellant's attorney filed a Motion for Forensic DNA Testing of Evidence on January 10, 2005. In the motion, appellant requested that all physical evidence containing biological material be tested, in particular the pistol, duffle bag, fired bullet, and clothing of the complainant. Appellant also filed a pro se Motion for Forensic DNA Testing of Evidence. The State responded to the motion for DNA testing by requesting that the court deny the motion. The State asserted that (1) the Harris County District Clerk's Office has no evidence from the instant case and (2) the Houston Police Department Crime Lab and Latent Lab do not have evidence relating to the instant offense. The State contended that the Houston Police Department Property Room has one item of evidence relating to the instant offense, described as "a clear plastic bag L84-10512 containing a stained piece of gauze and a plastic cup containing unknown substance labeled `blood sample.'" The State asserted that although there is a blood sample relating to the instant offense, "there is no other biological evidence from the case; accordingly, there can be no comparison of DNA profiles between items of evidence." The State concluded, "Based on the absence of evidence in the instant cause, the applicant cannot establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results were obtained through DNA testing." On April 20, 2007, the trial court denied appellant's motion for DNA testing and adopted the State's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court found that the only item of evidence that remained available for examination was the cup with the unknown substance labeled blood sample, but that appellant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results were obtained through DNA testing. Anders Procedure
The brief submitted by appellant's court-appointed counsel states that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal and, therefore, that any appeal would lack merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Counsel's brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 137-38 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). Appellant's counsel sent a copy of the brief to appellant, requested permission to withdraw from the case, and notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. When this Court receives an Anders brief from an appellant's court-appointed attorney asserting that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court — and not counsel — determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether case is "wholly frivolous"); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (citing same passage from Anders). In conducting our review, we consider any pro se response that the appellant files to his appointed counsel's Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Our role in this Anders appeal, which includes a pro se response by appellant, is limited to determining whether arguable grounds for appeal exist. Id. at 827. If we determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to allow the court-appointed attorney to withdraw. See id. The trial court must then either appoint another attorney to present all arguable grounds for appeal or, if appellant wishes, allow appellant to proceed pro se. See id. We do not rule on the ultimate merits of the issues raised by appellant in his pro se response. Id. If we determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal, appellant is entitled to have new counsel address the merits of the issues raised. Id. "Only after the issues have been briefed by new counsel may [we] address the merits of the issues raised." Id. If, on the other hand, we determine from our independent review of the entire record that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may affirm the trial court's judgment by issuing an opinion in which we explain that we have reviewed the record and have found no reversible error. See id. at 826-28. The holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal is subject to challenge by an appellant by a petition for discretionary review filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. at 827. In accordance with Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45, 87 S. Ct. at 1400, and Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-28, we have reviewed the record, appellant's appointed counsel's Anders brief, and appellant's pro se response to that brief, and we conclude that no reversible error exists. Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellant's appointed counsel's motion to withdraw.