Ismael Ruben Lopez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 6, 2010
• Docket: 10-08-00400-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

            This opinion/order has been withdrawn per order of the Tenth Court of Appeals.

ry> MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-00060-CR

No. 10-03-00061-CR

Terry Jerome Beck,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 564,661 and 564,662

Opinion

        This appeal concerns convictions for indecency with a child.  Appellant filed a motion for forensic DNA testing.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ch. 64 (Vernon Supp. 2004).  Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  We will affirm.

      Appellant has filed a brief.  See Anders at 744; Ayala v. State, 633 S.W.2d 526, 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982).  The State has filed a response.  See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 694 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.).

      We have conducted an independent review of the record to discover whether there are arguable grounds for appeal.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Anders at 744.  We determine that there are none.  Appellant complains, in part, of his 1990 conviction.  We do not have jurisdiction to address those untimely complaints.  Appellant contends that he is not receiving the assistance of counsel.  No requirement of constitutionally effective assistance applies in Chapter 64 proceedings.  Morris v. State, 110 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003, pet. ref’d); see Ex parte Graves, 70 S.W.3d 103, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (constitutionally effective assistance of counsel not required in collateral attacks).  Appellant also complains that he should have been permitted to “scope” the State’s entire file.  A defendant has no general right to discovery of non-exculpatory evidence.  See Washington v. State, 856 S.W.2d 184, 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).  Appellant does not frame an arguable claim that the State possesses material exculpatory evidence.

      We affirm the judgment.  Counsel must advise Appellant of our decision and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.  See Sowels at 694.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Reyna

Opinion delivered and filed August 11, 2004

Affirmed

Do not publish

[CRPM]