Court Opinion

ID: 2864748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 00:44:56.612296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:03.766088
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00243-CR

In re Joe Manuel Bassa

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 46,704, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

Joe Manuel Bassa appeals from an order denying post-conviction DNA testing.  See
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01-.05 (West Supp. 2002).  Appellant's court-appointed
attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See also Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State,
516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered
to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro
se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  Counsel's
motion to withdraw is granted.
The district court's order is affirmed.

  
				David Puryear, Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed:   October 10, 2002
Do Not Publish