Opinion issued November 29, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-12-00102-CR

____________

LEONARD JAMES LASURE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 798764

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Leonard James Lasure, filed a motion for post-conviction DNA 

testing in the trial court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. ch. 64 (West 2006 & 

Supp. 2012). The trial court granted the motion. After testing, the trial court found 

that the test results were unfavorable to appellant and that the results did not show a 
2

reasonable probability of appellant’s innocence. See Hicks v. State, 151 S.W.3d 

672, 675–76 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet ref’d). The trial court certified that 

appellant had the right of appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, 

along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 

therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Anders procedures apply in post-conviction DNA 

testing cases. See Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.3d 846, 847–48 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2003, no pet.). 

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal 

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 

573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has 

thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of 

error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell 

v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Here, counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to 

appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a 
3

response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Appellant has not filed a pro se response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we 

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable 

grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. 

at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App.

2009) (explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are 

“arguable grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005) (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—

determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly 

frivolous); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a holding that 

there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review 

in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.1 Attorney Roland Brice Moore III must immediately send the notice 

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice 

with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

 

1 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, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005).
4

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).