eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2009-07

Luis Hector Fugon v. State ( 2009 )


Menu:

  • Opinion issued July 9, 2009





         






    In The

    Court of Appeals

    For The

    First District of Texas




    NO. 01-08-00577-CR




    LUIS HECTOR FUGON, Appellant


    V.


    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




    On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

    Harris County, Texas

    Trial Court Cause No. 708545




    MEMORANDUM OPINION

              Appellant, Luis Hector Fugon, was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated sexual assault in trial court cause number 70854, and on September 26, 1996, his punishment was assessed at confinement for 50 years. This Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court. See Fugon v. State, 963 S.W.2d 135, (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d).

              On January 7, 2008, appellant filed a post- conviction motion for forensic DNA testing of evidence pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in which he sought DNA testing as it related to his conviction for sexual assault. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01–05 (Vernon 2006 & Supp. 2008). The trial court denied the motion, and appellant gave notice of appeal. We affirm.

              Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error, that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and that the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

              Counsel represents that he has 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. Having reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

              We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Attorney Bob Wicoff must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court.

    PER CURIAM

    Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Taft.

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