Opinion
NO. 03-15-00760-CR
06-03-2016
Ronnie Jean Davis, Sr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 56310, HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDINGMEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Ronnie Jean Davis, Sr. appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion for DNA testing.See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art 64.01. In its findings of fact, the trial court found that appellant did not satisfy the requirements of article 64.01. See id.
Appellant was convicted in 2004 of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.021.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant's counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Taylor v. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Svcs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). Appellant requested and received the appellate record and filed a pro se brief and two supplemental pro se briefs. Appellant also requested the appointment of another attorney to consult with him.
We have independently reviewed the record and the briefs and have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Finding no arguable grounds for appeal, appellant's request for remand to the trial court for appointment of new counsel is denied. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of his case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). If the petition is mistakenly filed with this Court, it will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this Court receives notice that a petition has been filed, the filings in this case cause will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7. --------
/s/_________
David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field Affirmed Filed: June 3, 2016 Do Not Publish