Eugenio L. Rodriguez v. State ( 2005 )

Criminal Case Template

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EUGENIO L. RODRIGUEZ,                             Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS,                             Appellee.

§ § § § §

No. 08-04-00178-CR Appeal from the 109th District Court of Andrews County, Texas (TC# 1532)

O P I N I O N

           This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for

DNA testing pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). We affirm.

           Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 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 has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has filed a pro se brief.

           We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the matter discussed in counsel’s brief and the pro se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

           The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                  RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice

September 22, 2005

Before Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)