Roger Aristotle Vidales v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 22, 2009
• Docket: 14-08-00920-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 22, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00920-CR

ROGER ARISTOTLE VIDALES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 684543

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of murder.  On October 10, 1995, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 50 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  On September 18, 1997, this court affirmed appellant’s conviction.  Vidales v. State, 14-95-01519-CR, 1997 WL 576410 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.).

            On August 11, 2008, appellant filed a motion for DNA testing.  The trial court denied appellant’s request because neither the Harris County District Clerk’s Office, nor the Harris County Medical Examiner’s Office were in possession of evidence from appellant’s trial.  Appellant appealed the trial court’s ruling.

            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. Crim. App. 1991).  At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him.  On September 21, 2009, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

            We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, 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.  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 Yates, Frost, and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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