Michael Rochelle Williams v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-05-00019-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL ROCHELLE WILLIAMS, APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Michael Rochelle Williams challenges the trial court s denial of his motion for DNA testing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 64.01 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). Appellant Appellant s counsel has filed an Anders // brief, stating that the record does not present any meritorious points for appeal. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We affirm.

Background

On November 30, 1989, Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appellant s conviction was affirmed by this court in an unpublished opinion dated March 31, 1993. See Williams v. State, No. 12-89-00309-CR, at *7 (Tex. App. Tyler 1993, pet. ref d). On May 13, 2002, Appellant filed a motion for DNA testing. The motion was denied by the trial court on December 23, 2004. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on January 19, 2005.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.

After conducting an independent examination of the record, we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered August 24, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and DeVasto, J.

Griffith, J., not participating.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)