Court Opinion

ID: 4056896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 08:16:26.161652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:04:02.691917
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 13, 2015.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                             NO. 14-14-00936-CR

                 DARRYL KENT AUTHORLEE, Appellant
                                       V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 185th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 240766

                MEMORANDUM                     OPINION

      Appellant Darryl Kent Authorlee appeals from the trial court’s denial of his
motion for post-conviction DNA testing. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a
brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The
brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by
advancing frivolous contentions that might arguably support the appeal. See
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485
S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1974).

      A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised
of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than
60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

      We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in
the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief
or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for
review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

      Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                       PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher and Busby.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         2