Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-24-00783-CR Edward ROCHA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CR8265 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Sitting: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 12, 2025 AFFIRMED, MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED Edward Rocha was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to fifty years in prison.

Rocha subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction forensic DNA testing, which the trial court denied. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64.01. Rocha appeals from the order denying his motion for forensic DNA testing.

Rocha’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal 04-24-00783-CR

authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. In compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel has certified that he served copies of the brief and motion to withdraw on Rocha, has informed Rocha of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief, and has explained to Rocha the procedure for obtaining the record. This court then set a deadline for Rocha to request a copy of the record and file a pro se brief. Rocha neither requested a copy of the record nor filed a pro se brief.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no arguable grounds for appeal exist and agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85- (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Rocha wish to seek further review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or from “the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by the court of appeals.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for

-2- 04-24-00783-CR

discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

Adrian A. Spears II, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-