Court Opinion

ID: 2865071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 00:49:36.31522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:57.912384
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00730-CR

In re Andrew Lee Butler

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

NO. 37,253, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

Andrew Lee Butler appeals from an order denying his motion for DNA testing of
biological evidence relating to his 1989 conviction for aggravated sexual assault.  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.

				___________________________________________
				Mack Kidd, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed:   August 8, 2002
Do Not Publish