Roger Eugene Fain v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00123-CR
___________________________
ROGER EUGENE FAIN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1023944D
Before Kerr, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Roger Eugene Fain appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to require
the State to compare unidentified DNA profiles found via Chapter 64 postconviction
DNA testing to the DNA profiles in the FBI’s and Texas Department of Public
Safety’s databases. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.035, 64.05. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motion, in which counsel has determined, after
examining the appellate record, that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and
motion meet Anders’s requirements, presenting a professional evaluation of the entire
record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Id., 87 S. Ct. at
1400. Although provided the opportunity to seek a copy of the appellate record and
to file a pro se response, appellant has not done so. Likewise, the State did not
respond to the Anders brief.
After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel
that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (noting reviewing court’s duty to make independent
determination after reviewing record); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S.
Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable
grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We
2
therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s order
denying appellant relief.
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: July 7, 2022
3