Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a post-conviction motion for DNA testing by an individual convicted of murder in 1979. The appellant sought DNA testing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 64.03, which permits such testing if the evidence exists and is in a suitable condition. However, the State provided affidavits indicating the evidence was either destroyed or its location was unknown, and the medical examiner's office confirmed no biological evidence was available. The trial court denied the motion, and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas. The appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, citing the appeal as frivolous under Anders v. California, and provided an appropriate supporting brief. The appellant declined to file a pro se brief. The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record, found the appeal frivolous due to the absence of DNA evidence, and granted the counsel's motion to withdraw. The decision was delivered on December 18, 2003, and the case remains unpublished in official reports.
Legal Issues Addressed
Frivolous Appeal and Anders Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate counsel filed an Anders brief indicating the appeal was frivolous. The court allowed the appellant to file a pro se brief, which he declined to do.
Reasoning: Webster's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw, asserting that the appeal was frivolous, supported by a brief meeting the requirements of Anders v. California.
Independent Review by Appellate Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record following the counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion for DNA testing.
Reasoning: Following the counsel's motion to withdraw, the court conducted an independent review of the record.
Post-Conviction DNA Testing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 64.03subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court may grant DNA testing if the evidence exists and is suitable for testing. In this case, the court found that there was no biological evidence available for testing.
Reasoning: Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 64.03, a court may grant DNA testing if the evidence exists and is in a condition suitable for testing. The State presented affidavits indicating that the evidence in Webster’s case was either destroyed or its whereabouts were unknown.