Opinion
No. 03-05-00856-CR
Filed: June 23, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the District Court of Bell County, 27th Judicial District, No. 48,441, Honorable Martha J. Trudo, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice LAW, Justices PATTERSON and PEMBERTON
MEMORANDUM OPINION
James Edward Nealy is serving the prison sentence imposed following his 1999 conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He appeals from an order denying his pro se motion for forensic DNA testing of the knife introduced at his trial as the deadly weapon. The court denied testing after finding that identity was not an issue in the case. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2005). The attorney appointed to represent Nealy on appeal filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). Nealy also filed a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and the pro se brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The order denying DNA testing is affirmed.