eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2002-08

in Re Andrew Lee Butler ( 2002 )


Menu:
 
  •           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Do Not Publish
2