Darryl Kent Authorlee v. State

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Decided: October 13, 2015
• Docket: 14-14-00936-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 13, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00936-CR

DARRYL KENT AUTHORLEE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 240766

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Darryl Kent Authorlee appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing. 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 (1967), by advancing frivolous contentions that might arguably support the appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).

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, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed 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. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. 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

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher and Busby. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).