Hector Aaron Lopez-Cruz v. State

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 3, 2007

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 3, 2007.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-06-00610-CR

____________

 

HECTOR AARON LOPEZ-CRUZ, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 788998

 

 

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child.  On October 14, 1998, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  No motion for new trial was filed.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was untimely.  Accordingly, this court dismissed his appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Lopez-Cruz v. State, No. 14-98-01340-CR (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] April 5, 2001, pet. ref=d) (not designated for publication).


Appellant requested post- conviction DNA testing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  Counsel was appointed to represent appellant.  After a hearing, the trial court denied appellant=s request and signed the State=s proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on June 1, 2006.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), 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).  At appellant=s request, the record was provided to him.  On April 16, 2007, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel=s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, and appellant=s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.  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.

 

PER CURIAM

 

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed May 3, 2007.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Hudson and Guzman. 

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).