Opinion
Nos. 05-10-00505-CR, 05-10-00506-CR
Opinion Filed May 31, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F98-01574-UN, F98-01575-UN.
Before Justices BRIDGES, LANG-MIERS, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court convicted Eldridge Clark Dunham in 1999 of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault and assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, at fifty years' imprisonment and a $5000 fine in each case. Appellant filed motions for post-conviction DNA testing in October 2003 pursuant to chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial judge denied the motions, and this Court affirmed the trial court's order denying the motions. In December 2009, appellant again filed motions for post-conviction DNA testing. The trial judge denied the motions after finding DNA testing could have been performed at the time of trial, appellant had not shown testing was not conducted through no fault of his own, and identity was not and is not an issue in the cases. This appeal followed. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal in these causes 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 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. Although appellant filed a pro se response raising several matters, a court of appeals is not required to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W. 3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, the Court's duty is to determine whether there are any arguable grounds and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so new counsel may be appointed to address the issues. Id. After reviewing counsel's brief, appellant's pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.