Opinion issued November 29, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-12-00102-CR
____________
LEONARD JAMES LASURE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 180th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 798764
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Leonard James Lasure, filed a motion for post-conviction DNA
testing in the trial court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. ch. 64 (West 2006 &
Supp. 2012). The trial court granted the motion. After testing, the trial court found
that the test results were unfavorable to appellant and that the results did not show a
reasonable probability of appellant’s innocence. See Hicks v. State, 151 S.W.3d
672, 675–76 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet ref’d). The trial court certified that
appellant had the right of appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and
therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Anders procedures apply in post-conviction DNA
testing cases. See Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.3d 846, 847–48 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2003, no pet.).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has
thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of
error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell
v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Here, counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a
2
response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable
grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App.
2009) (explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are
“arguable grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005) (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—
determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly
frivolous); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a holding that
there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review
in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Roland Brice Moore III must immediately send the notice
required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice
with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4