Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 19, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00512-CR

____________

JAMES WALKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 549,881

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child in 1990.  Appellant filed a motion for post‑conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01‑64.05 (Vernon Supp.2004‑05).  The trial court denied the request and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 21, 2005.  The trial court found that no biological material was available for testing and therefore concluded appellant had not met his burden of proof under the statute.  Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he 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), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and appellant filed a pro se response on December 20, 2005.

We have reviewed the issues and briefs and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief and response would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the State.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 19, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Frost, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).