Angel David Delacruz v. State

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 16, 2008

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 16, 2008.

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-08-00150-CR

NO. 14-08-00152-CR

____________

 

ANGEL DAVID DELACRUZ, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 963,294 & 963,296

 

 

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant guilty on two charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child.  On May 4, 2004, appellant was sentenced to confinement for fifty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  This Court affirmed appellant=s convictions.  See Delacruz v. State, Nos. 14-04-00475-CR & 14-04-00476-CR (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] July 26, 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication).


These appeals are from an order signed January 23, 2008, denying appellant=s request for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  Based upon affidavits filed by the State, the trial court found that appellant had failed to demonstrate that any biological evidence exists and is in sa condition making DNA testing possible.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03(a)(1)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2007).

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 and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (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).  As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed 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.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. 

Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

 

PER CURIAM

 

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed October 16, 2008.

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

Do Not Publish C Tex.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