Opinion
No. 05-14-00007-CR No. 05-14-00008-CR
01-12-2015
SENRICK SHERN WILKERSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-01183-J, F10-01184-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Francis
Senrick Shern Wilkerson was convicted of sexual performance by a child and sexual assault of a child in December 2010. The trial court assessed punishment at eight years in prison in each case. This Court affirmed appellant's convictions on direct appeal. Senrick Shern Wilkerson v. State, Nos. 05-11-00061-CR, 05-11-00062-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas July 16, 2012, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing in August 2013. The State responded that appellant's claim he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing was without merit, as was appellant's claim that identity was and is an issue in these cases. On October 8, 2013, the trial court denied appellant's motion for post-conviction DNA testing stating identity is not and was not an issue and the State's possessed no evidence that could have been subjected to DNA testing. This appeal followed.
Appellant was also convicted of compelling prostitution, which was also affirmed on direct appeal. Wilkerson v. State, No. 05-11-00060-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas July 16., 2012, pet. history) (not designated for publication) That conviction is not included in the appeals from the trial court's order denying appellant's motion for post-conviction DNA testing.
Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are 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, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).
Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues. After reviewing counsel's brief, appellant's pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals of appellant's request for DNA testing.
We affirm the trial court's order denying the motion for post-conviction DNA testing. Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
140007F.U05
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F10-01183-J).
Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Evans and Stoddart participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's order denying motion for post-conviction DNA testing is AFFIRMED.
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F10-01184-J).
Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Evans and Stoddart participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's order denying motion for post-conviction DNA testing is AFFIRMED.