Carl Yancy Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 22, 2022
• Docket: 05-20-01077-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed June 22, 2022

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-01077-CR

CARL YANCY JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F05-40209-R

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia

This is an appeal from an order denying postconviction DNA testing under

Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In March 2007, a jury

convicted appellant of murder and assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior

felony convictions, at life imprisonment. This Court affirmed appellant’s conviction

and sentence on direct appeal.

In May 2019, appellant filed a motion for postconviction DNA testing under

Chapter 64. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed. Appellant’s 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 concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The

State filed a letter brief agreeing with counsel’s assessment.

Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and the motion to

withdraw. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Specifically, the brief presents a professional evaluation of the record

showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief

meets requirements of Anders).

We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State,

436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file

pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). Appellant responded but presents

no arguable grounds to advance.

We have also reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the State’s letter brief.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining

appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without

merit and find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

–2– We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s

order.

/Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 201077F.U05

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

CARL YANCY JR., Appellant On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-20-01077-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F05-40209-R. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Molberg and Reichek participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered June 22, 2022

–4–