Court Opinion

ID: 2874512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 05:51:03.865998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:02.507663
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                       NO. 03-08-00071-CR

                                       In re Timothy Ruffin

     FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
            NO. 84,539, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Timothy Ruffin is serving the thirty-five year prison sentence imposed in 1987 after

he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of aggravated sexual assault. Ruffin appeals an order by

the district court denying his motion for post-conviction forensic DNA testing. In its order, the trial

court found, among other things, that Ruffin “has not established that any physical evidence relating

to this case and containing biological material currently exists.” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

art. 64.03(a)(1)(A)(i) (West Supp. 2007).

               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). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and 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 order denying DNA testing is affirmed.

                                              ___________________________________________

                                              Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: August 6, 2008

Do Not Publish

                                                 2