Howard Eugene Davis v. the State of Texas

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-

20 (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