Affirmed and Opinion Filed January 12, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-14-00007-CR No. 05-14-00008-CR SENRICK SHERN WILKERSON, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Crimin al District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-01183-J, F10-01184-J 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Francis
Senrick Shern Wilkerson was convicted of sexual performance by a child and sexual
assault of a child in December 2010. The trial c ourt assessed punishment at eight years in prison
in each case. This Court affirmed a ppellant’s convictions on direct appeal. 1 Senrick Shern
Wilkerson v. State , Nos. 05-11-00061-CR, 05-11-00062-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas July 16, 2012, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing in August 2013. The State responded that appellant’s claim he would not have been

1 Appellant was also convicted of compelling prostitu tion, which was also affirmed on direct appeal. Wilkerson v. State , No. 05-11-00060-CR (Tex. App.––Dallas July 16., 2012, pet. hist ory) (not designated for publication) Th at conviction is not included in the appea ls from the trial court’s order denying a ppellant’s motion for post-conviction DNA testing.‐ 2 ‐ convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing was without merit, as was appellant’s claim that ident ity was and is an issue in thes e cases. On October 8, 2013, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for post-convi ction DNA testing stating identity is not and was not an issue and the State’s possessed no ev idence that could have been subjected to DNA testing. This appeal followed. Appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous
and without merit. The brie f meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluati on of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (ide ntifying duties of a ppellate courts and
counsel in Anders cases). Appellant filed a pro se response raising seve ral issues. After revi ewing counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we ag ree the appeals are frivolous and without merit.
See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the r ecord that might arguably support the appeals of appellant’s request for DNA testing. We affirm the trial court’s order deny ing the motion for post-conviction DNA testing.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 140007F.U05

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE‐ 3 ‐ 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

SENRICK SHERN WILKERSON, Appellant
No. 05-14-00007-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F10-01183-J). Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Evans and Stod dart participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying motion for postconviction DNA testing is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered January 12, 2015.‐ 4 ‐ 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

SENRICK SHERN WILKERSON, Appellant
No. 05-14-00008-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F10-01184-J). Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Evans and Stod dart participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying motion for postconviction DNA testing is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered January 12, 2015.