Opinion
No. 01-03-00757-CR
Opinion issued October 7, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 208th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 601873.
Panel consists of Justices TAFT, JENNINGS, and BLAND.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant, Kevin Wayne Harris, guilty of the offense of murder and assessed punishment at confinement for 40 years. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed. See Harris v. State, No. 14-94-00119-CR, slip op. at 7 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no pet.) (not designated for publication). On May 1, 2003, appellant filed a motion for DNA testing of ballistics evidence. See generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01 (Vernon Supp. 2004). The trial court denied the motion on May 5, 2003, and appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that this appeal is without merit. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). Counsel represents that he served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeal is without merit. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeal and also to inform him 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).