Opinion
No. 14-03-00574-CR
August 28, 2003. Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 351st District, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 642,841
Panel consists of Chief Justice BRISTER and Justices ANDERSON and SEYMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After a jury trial, appellant was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. On December 15, 1992, he was sentenced to confinement for twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This Court affirmed appellant's conviction. See Sonnier v. State, No. 14-92-01328-CR, (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] April 14, 1994, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Appellant filed a post-conviction motion for forensic DNA testing pursuant to Chapter 64 o the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The State filed a motion asking the trial court to deny DNA testing and provided sworn affidavits from the Harris County District Clerk's Office, the Houston Police Department Property Room, and the Houston Police Department Crime Lab, in which each department stated it had not received and did not possess any physical evidence pertaining to the offense for which appellant was convicted. The trial court denied appellant's motion for DNA testing and appellant filed a timely written notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel 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, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the 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). On August 11, 2003, appellant filed a pro se response to his counsel's Anders brief. In his response, appellant asserts that he had taken a DNA test in connection with a previous indictment in trial court cause number 601,309, and that indictment was subsequently dismissed. He also provided the names of other individuals who might be able to assist in obtaining information about the evidence he seeks. Appellant's response does not demonstrate, however, that the trial court erred in concluding appellant failed to meet the statute's requirements to show that the forensic evidence still exists and is in a condition making DNA testing possible. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. Further discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.