COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ARMANDO MADRID,

Appellant,

§

§

No. 08-18-00063-CR

Appeal from the

v.

§

109th District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

§

of Andrews County, Texas

§

Appellee.

§

(TC# 4716)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Armando Madrid appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to set aside his 

conviction of sexual assault of a child based on post-conviction DNA testing. Appellant was 

convicted of sexual assault of a child by sexual contact in 2007 and sentenced to serve twenty-five 

years in TDCJ-ID. The trial court later granted Appellant’s motion for DNA testing of certain 

items of the child victim’s clothing. A semen stain was found on the victim’s panties, but none 

was found on the victim’s bra and a shirt. Appellant was identified to a reasonable degree of 

scientific certainty as the source of the DNA profile from the sperm fraction of the semen stain. 

Additionally, a mixture of DNA was found on the victim’s pants, and Appellant was the lone 

contributor of the DNA profile from the sperm fraction. Following a hearing, the trial court entered 

an order finding that had the results of the DNA testing been available during the trial of the 
- 2 -

offense, it would not have reasonably affected the probability of Appellant not being convicted. 

See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 64.04 (“After examining the results of testing under Article 

64.03 and any comparison of a DNA profile under Article 64.035, the convicting court shall hold 

a hearing and make a finding as to whether, had the results been available during the trial of the 

offense, it is reasonably probable that the person would not have been convicted.”). We affirm. 

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be 

advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)(“In Texas, an 

Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it 

must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal 

authorities.”); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the 

Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel’s brief and the motion to withdraw to 

Appellant, and he has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and 

to seek discretionary review. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20 (Tex.Crim.App.

2014)(setting forth duties of counsel). Counsel provided a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s 

record to Appellant. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief.

After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 
- 3 -

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

January 30, 2019

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)