### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00456- CR

Gr egory C hris Angelo, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 47,3 76, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Gre g ory Chris Ang elo was convicted of a no n -d eath- penalty capital
murder in 1997, and the trial court automatically sentenc ed him to life imprisonment. He appea led
his conviction to this Court, which af fi rm ed the conviction. I n May , 2016, Ang elo filed a pro se motion for DNA testing in the trial court to have a pistol, pistol clip, and scissors found at the crime

scene tested for the prese nce of blood. The trial court conclude d that Ang elo had no rea sonable
g rounds for his motion for DN A testing and denie d the motion.

Ang e lo ’ s c o u

r t- a p p o in ted attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a b r ie f

c o n c lu d in g th a

t th e a p p e a l is f r iv o lo u s a n d w it h o u t me r it

. Co u

n s e l’ s b r ie f me e ts th e r e q

u ir e me n ts of
A n d er s v. C aliforni a by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of t he record and demonst rating th at there are no ar gu ab l e gro unds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 0 0 9 ); s ee also Penson v. Ohio ,488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Ang elo’s counsel has repr esente d to the Court tha t he provided copies

of the motion and brief to Ang elo; advised Ang elo of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord, file

a pro se brief, and pursue discretionar y revie w following the resolution of the appea l in this Court;
and provided Ang elo wi t h a fo rm motion for pro se acc ess to the appellate rec ord along with the mailing addre ss of this Court. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W .3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Although Ang elo reque sted and recei ved the appellate rec ord and additional time to file a pro se brief, tha t time has run and no pr o se brief has bee n filed.
We have independe ntly re v i ew ed the rec ord and have found nothing that might
arg uably support the appea l. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 7 6 6 ; Bledsoe
v. Stat e , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that t he appeal
is frivolous and without merit. We g rant counsel’s motion to withdraw and aff irm the judgme nt of convic tion. 1

No substitut e counsel will be appointed. Should Ang elo wish to seek further revie w of his 1 case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls, he must either reta in an attorney to file a petition for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se petit ion for discretionary revie w. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (g overning proce eding s in Court of Criminal Appea ls). Any petition for discretionar y revie w must be filed within thirty day s from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court overr ules the last timely motion for rehe aring filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with the clerk of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. Id. R. 68.3(a). I f the pe tition is mistakenly filed wit h this Court, it will be forwa rded to the Court of Criminal Appe als. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should comply with the rules of appellate proce dure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this Court rec eives notice that a petition has bee n filed, the filing s in this case ca use will be for

war ded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7.
2__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield
Affir med
Filed: Nove mber 17, 2016
Do Not Publish

3