Henry Earl Cosey v. The State of TexasAppeal from 208th District Court of Harris County (Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam)

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 1st District Court of Appeals » 2013 » Henry Earl Cosey v. The State of TexasAppeal from 208th District Court of Harris County (Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam)

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 01-11-00309-CR

Case Date: 06/25/2013

Plaintiff: Henry Earl Cosey

Defendant: The State of TexasAppeal from 208th District Court of Harris County (Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam)

Preview:Opinion issued June 25, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
------------------------

NO. 01-11-00309-CR ---------------------- HENRY EARL COSEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 599361 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant, Henry Earl Cosey, guilty of the offense of sexual assault and that he had been previously convicted of a felony offense, and it assessed his punishment at confinement for 30 years. We affirmed the trial court's judgment in an unpublished opinion. See Cosey v. State, No. 01-92-00852-CR,

1994 WL 388310 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] July 28, 1994, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). Appellant then filed a post-conviction motion for forensic DNA testing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(a-1) (West Supp. 2012). The trial court granted the motion. See id. art. 64.03(a), (c) (West Supp. 2012). Upon receiving the test results, the trial court found that the results were not favorable to appellant and it is not reasonably probable that appellant would not have been convicted had the results been available during the trial of the offense. See id. art. 64.04 (West Supp. 2012). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. See id. art. 64.05 (West 2006). Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly

reviewed the record and he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
2

In his pro se response, appellant asserts that the trial court refused to call certain witnesses at the trial of the case and did not consider all of the evidence. He further asserts that he has been deprived of the right to read and possess political literature, has not been provided with necessary medical care, and has been threatened with punishment for taking legal action. Finally, he asserts that the search and seizure in his underlying case was unsupported by the evidence and he was compelled to give evidence against himself. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court--and not counsel--determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

Download 01-11-00309-cr-1.pdf