TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00071-CR

In re Timothy Ruffin

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 84,539, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Timothy Ruffin is serving the thirty-five year prison sentence imposed in 1987 after he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of aggravated sexual assault. Ruffin appeals an order by the district court denying his motion for post-conviction forensic DNA testing. In its order, the trial court found, among other things, that Ruffin “has not established that any physical evidence relating to this case and containing biological material currently exists.” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03(a)(1)(A)(i) (West Supp. 2007).

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The order denying DNA testing is affirmed.

___________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson Affirmed Filed: August 6, 2008 Do Not Publish