Harrison, David Joseph v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 19, 2002
• Docket: 14-02-00396-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed December 19, 2002

Affirmed and Opinion filed December 19, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00396-CR

DAVID JOSEPH HARRISON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 36,825

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

Appellant was charged with the offense of aggravated sexual abuse.  He initially pled not guilty and proceeded to trial by jury; however, during trial, appellant changed his plea to guilty.  The trial court sentenced appellant to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Institutional Division for forty years.  On February 20, 2002, appellant filed a motion for DNA testing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion on April 12, 2002, and appellant filed a notice of appeal. 

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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), 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.  On November 19, 2002, appellant filed a pro se response.  In the response, appellant alleges the trial court should have made findings pursuant to section 64.04 because even though the biological evidence has been destroyed, the results from previous tests were still in existence and were favorable.

We agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the response 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 December 19, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).