### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 22
- 00185
- CR

John Slaughter , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D - 1
- DC
- 98
- 983649 , THE HONORABLE KAREN SAGE , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In 2000, John Slaughter was convicted of the offense of agg ravated sexual assault and sentenced to imprisonment for life. See Tex. Penal Code § § 12.32, 22.011 , .021

. Years later, Slaughter filed a motion fo r post

- conviction DNA te sting under Chapt er 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 64.01

- .05. After reviewing the motion and the S t ate ’ s response, the trial court ordered that the following evidence be submitted to testing:

s amples from the rec tal swabs collected from the victim and two pubic hairs found in between the victim ’ s buttocks. Subsequent testing on the rectal swab could not exclude Slaughter as a contributor and produced the following result: “ The D NA profile f rom the sperm cell f

raction

. . . is interpre ted as a mixture of 2 individuals with [the victim] as an assumed contributor. Obtaining this sa mple is 8.02 sextillion times more likely than if the DNA came from [the victim] and John Slaug hter than if the D NA came from [the vic tim] and one unrelated, unknown individual. ” Su bse quent testing on the pubic hair concluded that the DNA came from a s ingle2

individual, excluded the victim as a contributor , and pro duced the following results: “ Obtaining this [DNA] profile is 39, 900 [ t ime s ] more likely if t he DNA came from John Slaughter than if the D NA came from an unrelated, unknown individual. ”

Following a hearing, the trial court issued an order finding that the DNA testing results are inculpatory and not favorable to Slaughter and t ha t if the results had been available during trial, it is reasonably probable th at he would still have been convicted

. See id. ar t. 64.04

. Slaughter appeal s the trial court ’ s order. See id. art. 64.05

. Slaughter ’ s court

- appo inted attorney on appeal fi l ed a motion to withdraw supported by an Ande rs brief contending that the ap peal is frivo lous and without merit. See Anders v. Californi a , 386 U.S. 738, 744

- 45 (1967) ; see also Murphy v. State , 111 S.W.3d 846 , 848 (T ex. App.

— Dallas 2003, no pet.) (concludi ng that “ the principles of Anders ” apply to “ proce edings under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)

.

Slaughter ’ s court

- appointed attorney ’ s b r ief meets the requirements of Anders by
prese n t ing a professional evaluation of th e record and demonstr atin g that there are no arguable grounds to be advance d. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744

- 45 ; Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 81

- 82 (198 8) (expl aining that
An ders briefs s erve purpose of “assisti ng the court in deter mini ng both that counsel in f ac t condu cted t he required detailed r eview of the case and that the appeal is

. . . frivolous”). Slaughter ’ s counsel represented to the Court tha t he provided copies of the motion and brie f to Slaughter ; ad vi sed Slaughter of h is r ight to examine the appellate record, file a p ro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided Slaughter with a form motion for pro s e access to the appellate r ecord alo ng with the mailing addr ess of this Court. See Kelly v. State , 4 3 6 S.W.3d 3 13, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

.3

Slaughter has not re quested a copy of the appellate record or file d a pro se brief, and the time permitted to file a brief has expired

.

We have i nd ependently revie wed t he record an d have found nothing t hat might arguably support the appeal. Se e Anders , 386 U.S. a t 744 ; Garner , 300 S.W.3d at 766

. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without mer it. We grant c ounsel ’ s mot ion to wi th draw and affirm the t rial cour t ’ s order

.

_______________________________________ ___ Thomas J. Baker , Ju stice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and K elly Affirmed Filed: October 13, 2022 Do Not Publish