Brown, Louis Shannon v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 23, 2003
• Docket: 14-03-00581-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 23, 2003

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 23, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00581-CR

LOUIS SHANNON BROWN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 95CR1212

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant pled guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child.  On March 7, 1997, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 23 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

On September 13, 2002, appellant filed a Motion for Forensic DNA Testing.  At the hearing on appellant=s motion, the State introduced two exhibits. Exhibit one was an affidavit by the Manager of the Property Room of the Galveston Police Department.  In this affidavit, the manager stated that, although records indicated there was one item of evidence, a t-shirt with a Tweety Bird design, the t-shirt could not be found.  Exhibit two was an affidavit from the Custodian of Records for the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory in Houston, Texas.  The custodian stated that the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory in Houston had no records or evidence relating to the aggravated sexual assault offense.  Based on this evidence the trial court denied appellant=s motion for DNA testing.  Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by 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).  As of this date, 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.  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 judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed October 23, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Hudson, and Fowler.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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