Opinion
No. 05-06-00665-CR.
Filed January 26, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. F03-01239-R. AFFIRM
Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Wynell Russell appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing. In January 2004, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of injury to a child and assessed punishment, enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at fifty-five years' imprisonment. In June 2005, 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 she 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 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). 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 orders denying appellant's request for post-conviction DNA testing.