Opinion
No. 05-05-00056-CR
Opinion Issued September 23, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F00-29400-K. Affirmed.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, LANG-MIERS, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carlos Pantoja appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing. In 2000, a jury found appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment and a $5000 fine. Appellant's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See Pantoja v. State, No. 05-00-00756-CR (Tex.App.-Dallas June 19, 2001, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). In 2004, 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. 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 he has a right to file a pro se response, but appellant did not initially file one. On September 12, 2005, one month after the submission letter was mailed, appellant filed a pro se response. In the pro se response, appellant attacks the proceedings related to his conviction, including the failure to obtain DNA testing, the credibility of the witnesses, and the effectiveness of trial counsel. The appellate jurisdiction granted under chapter 64 does not extend to collateral attacks on the judgment of conviction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.05 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); Hicks v. State, 151 S.W.3d 672, 674 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, pet. ref'd). Appellant does not raise any arguable points of error. 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.