Clarence Henry Mathis, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant brings this appeal from an order denying his request for DNA testing.¹  See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.03.  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 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).

A copy of counsel's brief and the record 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, 512 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).  As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

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.  We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Appellant's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in Mathis v. State, No. 14–07–00732–CR, 2009 WL 3003252, (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 10, 2009, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated for publication).

PER CURIAM