John Robert Gray v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 3, 2006
• Docket: 14-05-00932-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 3, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 3, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00932-CR

JOHN ROBERT GRAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 481,656

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On February 15, 1988, appellant was convicted of the offense of indecency with a child and was sentenced to 27 years in  the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  On February 12, 2002, appellant filed a motion for DNA testing.   Counsel was appointed and a supplemental motion for DNA testing was filed.  On July 20, 2005, the trial court denied appellant=s motion for DNA testing.  Appellant filed a timely 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 requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (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.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991).  On June 1, 2006, this court issued an order, directing the trial court to afford appellant a copy of the record, and setting a deadline for the filing of a pro se response within thirty days of the date appellant received a copy of the record.  The appellant received a copy of the record on June 5, 2006.  Thus, the pro se response was due on or before July 5, 2006.  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 Memorandum Opinion filed August 3, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Hudson, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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