Edward Rocha v. the State of Texas

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-

86 (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-