Carl Lee Watkins v. State










In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-04-00069-CR

______________________________



CARL LEE WATKINS, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



                                              


On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13,993-94



                                                 




Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            Carl Lee Watkins has appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01–.05 (Vernon Supp. 2004–05). The issues raised in this case are identical to those he presents in Watkins v. State, No. 06-04-00068-CR. Since the issues and arguments are identical in both appeals, for the reasons stated in Watkins v. State, No. 06-04-00068-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgment in this case.

 

 

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice


Date Submitted:          January 6, 2005

Date Decided:             January 7, 2005


Do Not Publish

r the organized crime charge. The state court ordered those two sentences to run concurrently, but consecutive to the federal sentence.

          Siler's attorney has filed an appellate brief in which she concludes, after a review of the record and the related law, the appeal is frivolous and without merit. She summarized pretrial and trial activities in her brief. The brief contains a professional evaluation of the record and contains five points of error that arguably support reversal. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

          Counsel provided a copy of her brief to Siler December 30, 2004, and he was also provided with a copy of the record. Siler filed a response pro se to his counsel's Anders brief April 4, 2005. The State has not filed a response.

          The same briefs and arguments apply to both appeals. For the reasons stated in our opinion of this date in cause number 06-04-00089-CR, we likewise find no reversible error in this case.

          We affirm the judgment.



                                                                           Donald R. Ross

                                                                           Justice


Date Submitted:      June 6, 2005

Date Decided:         June 24, 2005


Do Not Publish