11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Ernesto C. Mendoza
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-05-00004-CR -- Appeal from Erath County
State of Texas
Appellee
This is an appeal from an order denying Ernesto C. Mendoza’s motion for post-conviction forensic DNA testing pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 64.01 et seq. (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 2004 - 2005). We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se response. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Eaden v. State, No. 11-03-00405-CR, 2005 WL 309558 (Tex.App. - Eastland, February 10, 2005, no pet’n)(not yet reported).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. The record reflects that no biological evidence was seized. Article 64.03.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
April 14, 2005 PER CURIAM
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J .