Michael Eugene Riley v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion issued February 16, 2006

In The

Court of Appeals

For The  

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-04-01150-CR

____________

MICHAEL EUGENE RILEY, Appellant  

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 209th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 765453

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

               Appellant, Michael Eugene Riley, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for post -conviction DNA testing, pursuant to article 64.03(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. We affirm the order of the trial court.

                Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief concluding that this appeal is without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates the lack of arguable grounds of error. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d).

               Counsel represents that he served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no reversible error in the record, and agree that the appeal is without merit. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

               We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Higley, and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).