Tyrone Berry v. The State of Texas Appeal from 180th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Motion to Withdraw Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 7, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00844-CR TYRONE BERRY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1019634 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to sexual assault of a child. On May 2, 2006, pursuant to the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant did not file a direct appeal from his conviction. In this appeal, appellant is challenging the trial court’s order signed August 9, 2013, denying relief on appellant’s motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01–.05 (West 2006 & Supp. 2014). Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has complied with the Anders procedures set out in Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant, and appellant was advised of the deadline to file any pro se response to counsel’s brief. Appellant was granted several extensions of time to file a responsive brief. In addition, appellant was granted leave to file a responsive brief of up to 65 pages in length. Appellant has now filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief. We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We need not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Wise. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
