Opinion
No. 05-04-00758-CR
Opinion Filed January 18, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F86-96664-QR. Affirmed.
Before Justices O'NEILL, FITZGERALD, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Julian Arthur Randall, Jr. appeals the denial of his motion for forensic DNA testing under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant he has a right to file a pro se response. Appellant filed a pro se response, arguing there are arguable issues for appeal. We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, PD-300-04, 2005 WL 3057799 (Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 16, 2005). We affirm the trial court's order denying appellant's motion for forensic DNA testing.