Court Opinion

ID: 9484797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 10:09:44.794027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:28.380595
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-22-00275-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

JEFFERY SCOTT GRIMES,                           §      APPEAL FROM THE 3RD
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Jeffery Scott Grimes appeals the trial court’s denial of his Motion for Postconviction
Scientific Testing. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137
(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

                                         BACKGROUND
       In 2004, Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to
imprisonment for fifty years. On September 22, 2021, he filed a Motion for Postconviction
Scientific Testing in the trial court. Appellant also filed a Declaration of Movant in support of
his motion. On October 4, 2021, the trial court sent an email to the Anderson County District
Attorney’s Office (the DA’s office), by which it inquired about the existence of any evidence
collected and whether there is any DNA that could be tested. The DA’s office relayed the trial
court’s inquiry to the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office’s Evidence Custodian. On October 5,
the Evidence Custodian responded that the Sheriff’s Office had no physical evidence. The DA’s
office forwarded the Evidence Custodian’s email to the trial court along with the response that
the State has no physical evidence subject to DNA testing, there was no physical evidence
admitted at Appellant’s trial, and Appellant was convicted upon witness testimony, medical
records, and opinion testimony related to the medical records. The trial court subsequently
denied Appellant’s motion, and this appeal followed.

                            ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
        Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. He further relates that he is well-acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of
the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
appeal. 1 We likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

                                                 CONCLUSION
        As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
        As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this
opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief
has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

                                                        2
Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should
comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered July 31, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                             JULY 31, 2023

                                         NO. 12-22-00275-CR

                                       JEFFERY S. GRIMES,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 3rd District Court
                           of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 26796)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                       It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, for which execution may issue, and that this
decision be certified to the court below for observance.
                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.