Opinion
No. 05-10-00957-CR
Opinion issued April 28, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F83-96312-J.
Before Justices BRIDGES, LANG-MIERS, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Robert Meredith Eames in 1983 of aggravated rape and assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at life imprisonment. In September 2009, appellant filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial judge denied the motion after finding there was no showing that there was any evidence to test. This appeal followed. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he 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 of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals's duty is to determine whether there are any arguable issues, and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues). 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.