Opinion
Nos. 01-05-00458-CR, 01-05-00459-CR
Opinion issued August 3, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 209th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 666521 and 666522.
Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK and Justices JENNINGS and ALCALA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jeffery Carl Simmons, pleaded guilty to the offenses of kidnapping and sexual assault, and the trial court sentenced him to confinement for 10 years in each case. Appellant subsequently filed, in regard to both convictions, post-conviction motions for forensic DNA testing in the convicting court. The State, in response, filed motions to deny DNA testing, and the trial court, after a hearing, denied appellant's motions. Appellant challenges the trial court's orders denying his motions for post-conviction DNA testing. We affirm. Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error, that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and that the appeal must be dismissed or the orders affirmed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id. at 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised him of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. Having reviewed the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Accordingly, we hold that there are no arguable grounds for review and affirm the orders of the trial court. We grant counsel's motions to withdraw.See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeals and also to inform him that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).