John Earnest Collier Jr. v. State ( 2013 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-12-00498-CR
_________________
JOHN EARNEST COLLIER JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 258th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 19687
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, John Earnest Collier Jr., filed a motion for post-conviction DNA
testing in the trial court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01-.05 (West
2006 & Supp. 2012). The trial court denied the motion, finding that no biological
evidence existed for testing. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with an Anders brief in which he concludes that the record presents no
reversible error and therefore the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Anders procedures apply in post-
conviction DNA testing cases. See Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.3d 846, 847-48 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). Counsel asserts in his brief that there is absolutely no
evidence that any biological evidence was obtained in the investigation of the case
that could have been DNA tested. Counsel further indicates he has thoroughly
reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any potentially meritorious
point on appeal.
Counsel has informed this Court that he has delivered a copy of his brief to
appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and file a
response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Appellant did not file a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the record and we agree with counsel that
this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that
arguably might support an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable
grounds for review exist). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw
and affirm the trial court’s order denying DNA testing.1
1
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2
AFFIRMED.
__________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on September 16, 2013
Opinion Delivered November 13, 2013
Do not publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3