Opinion
No. 05-04-00166-CR
Opinion Filed March 31, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F81-11424-Ipi.
Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices FRANCIS and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 1982, a jury convicted John Carol Hill of rape of a child younger than seventeen years. After finding an enhancement paragraph to be true, the jury assessed punishment at ninety-nine years in prison. In 2003, appellant filed a motion seeking forensic DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 64.01, et seq. (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). The trial court denied appellant's motion for failure to show that testable evidence exists or that the identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the offenses was at issue. Appellant now appeals the trial court's order denying testing. 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). See Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.3d 846, 849 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). 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, however, did not file a pro se response. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. 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 order.