Leonardo Quinonez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 16, 2011
• Docket: 01-10-00928-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 16, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NOS. 01-10-00927-CR, 01-10-00928-CR, 01-10-00929-CR

———————————

Leonardo Quinonez, Appellant

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case Nos. 1042909, 1042910, 1042911

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Leonardo Quinonez, challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing.[1] 

Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967).  The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal.  Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).  The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

When this Court receives an Anders brief from a defendant’s court-appointed appellate counsel, we conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous, i.e., whether it presents any arguable grounds for appeal.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.  An appeal is frivolous when it does not present any argument that could “conceivably persuade the court.”  In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).  In our review, we consider appellant’s pro se response, if any, to his counsel’s Anders brief.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Here, appellant has filed a pro se response, contending in two issues that the interest of justice requires the trial court to order DNA testing of biological material in the State’s possession.  Having reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error.  See id.

We affirm the order of the trial court.  We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.[2]  See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (per curiam). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

[1]           See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03 (Vernon 2010).  

[2]           Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Downs v. State, 137 S.W.3d 837, 842 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 204, pet. ref’d).