Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00192-CR

Howard Eugene Davis, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 19th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Thomas C. West, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2014-1691-C1 JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Howard Eugene Davis pled guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. See Davis v. State, No. 07-15-00370-CR, 2016 WL 1398537, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 6, 2016) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Davis now appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing of a firearm under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01, et seq.

Davis’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief demonstrates a professional evaluation of the record for error and he has demonstrated compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. See id. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319- (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008). Davis filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. The State also filed a response.

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must conduct a full examination of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). Arguments are frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy v. Ct. of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, Davis’s pro se response, and the State’s response, and we find that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Howard Eugene Davis v. The State of Texas Page 2 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Davis’s Chapter 64 motion for DNA testing. Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Davis is granted.

STEVE SMITH Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: October 23, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motion granted Do not publish CRPM

Howard Eugene Davis v. The State of Texas Page 3