## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 76, 186
R U BE N G U TIER R EZ , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON DI RE CT AP P EA L F ROM CAUS E N UM BE R 1 9 9 8 - CR- 1 3 9 1 - A I N T HE 1 0 7 TH DI S TR I CT COURT CAM ER ON COUNT Y K EASLE R , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., M E YE RS , P RI CE , W OMACK , H ERVEY , H OL C OM B , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . J OHNS ON , J ., c onc ur r e d. O P I N I O N G ut i err ez di r ect l yappea l s the tr i al j udge’ s or derdeny i ng hi s r eques tforappoi nt ed
c o u n se l u n d e r T e x a s C o d e o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re A rticle 6 4 .0 1 (c ) to f ile a m o tio n f

o r p o stc o n v ictio n D N A tes tin g . W e h o ld th a t an o rd e r d e n y in g a p p o in ted c o u n se l u n d e r A rticle 6 4 . 0 1 (c) is n o t i m m ed iat elyap p ea lable u n d er T ex as R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 2 5 . 2 (a)(2). T h e re f o re , w e d is m is s G u tie rr e z ’s a p p e a l f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n . Backg r oundG U T I E R R E Z —2

G u tier re z v . S ta te , N o. A P- 73, 462 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. J an. 16, 2002) ( not 1 d e s ig n a te d f

o r p u b lic a tio n ). See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 6 4 .0 1 (c ) ( V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ), last 2 am ended A c ts 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 th L e g ., c h . 1 0 0 6 , § 2 , e f f. S e p t. 1 , 2 0 0 7 . G ut i err ez w as convi ct ed of c api t al m ur derand s ent ence d t o death forhi s part i ci pat i on in th e ro b b e rya n d m u rd e r o f e ig h ty -f iv e -y e a r-o ld E sc o las tica H a rriso n . W e a f f irm e d h is
co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e on d ir ec t ap p ea l in 2 0 0 2 , an d w e d en ied h is st ate a p p li ca ti o n fo r a 1
w r i t of hab e a s c o rp u s i n 2 0 0 8 . Gut i e rr e z th e n f i l e d a f e d e r a l p e t i t i o n f

o ra wr i to f

h a b e as c o rp u s. H o w e v e r, w h ile h is pe tit io n w a s p e n d in g , G u tierr e z re q u e ste d a sta yso th a t h e c o u ld raise tw o u n ex h au sted claim s b ef o re this C o u rt . T h e f

ederal distr ictco u rtg ran ted G u ti errez ’s
re q u e st. I n M ay2009, G ut i err ez’ s fede r al habea s couns el fi l ed a mot i on forappoi nt m entof
couns el u n d er C hapt er64, T exas C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e, w hi ch governs m ot i ons for pos t - convi ct i on D N A t es t i ng. G ut i err ez, thr ough couns el, asse rt ed thathe i s i ndi gentand cannotpr epar e an adequa t e m ot i on w i thout the ass i s t ance of exper i ence d couns el . G ut i err ez also m aintaine d that rea so n ab le gro u n d s fo r po st- co n v ict ion D N A test ing ex ist . In su p p o rt 2 of thi s as s ert i on, G ut i err ez be gan by des cr i bi ng the i t ems cont ai ni ng bi ol ogi cal m at er i al t hat
a re in th e S tate ’s p o ss e ss io n a n d th a t w e re n o t tes ted a t trial:

• A b l o o d s a mp l e t a k e n f r o m th e v i c t i m; • A s hi r t bel ongi ng t o the vi ct i m ’ s nephew and hous emat e cont ai ni ng appar ent blood st ai ns; • Na i l s c r a p i n g s t a k e n f r o m v i c t i m; • B l ood s ampl es col l ect ed fr om : ( 1) the vi ct i m ’ s nephew ’ s bathr oom , a r ai ncoat l ocat ed out s i de the vi ct i m ’ s nephew ’ s bedr oom ; an d (3) the s ofa i n the fr ontG U T I E R R E Z —3

T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 6 4 .0 1 (a ). 3 See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 6 4 .0 3 (a )( 1 )( B ) ( V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ), last 4 am ended A ct s 2007, 80th L eg. , ch. 1006, § 3, eff . Sept . 1, 2007; A ct s 2007, 80th L eg. , ch. 1 0 0 6 , § 4 , e f

f. S e p t. 1 , 2 0 0 7 . of the vi ct i m ’ s hous e; and
• A h a ird is c o v e re d a ro u n d th e th ir d f in g e r o n th e v ic tim ’s le f t h a n d . C ouns el ar gued thatD N A t es t i ng excl udi ng G ut i err ez a s a donorof the bi ol ogi cal m at er i al on the af or ement i oned i t ems w oul d “t end t o s uppor tM r . G ut ierrez’s asser t i on thathe w as notpr es ent , dur i ng, di d not part i ci pat e i n, and di d not know orant i ci pat e the vi ct i m ’ s m ur der and i s thus notgui l tyof ca pi t al m ur der . ” T he St at e fi l ed a resp o n se t o thi s r eques t , as s ert i ng thatG ut i err ez f ai l ed t o pr es ent
r eas onabl e gr ounds fora mot i on fort es t i ng t o be fi l ed. C i t i ng A r t i cl e 64. 01( a) , w hi ch s t at es th a t a m o tio n f

o r D N A tes tin g m u st b e a c c o m p a n ied b ya n a f f id a v it co n tain in g sta tem e n ts of fa ct s s uppor t i ng the mot i on, the St at e as s ert ed thatG ut i err ez’ s r eques tforcouns el fai l ed 3 t o st at e any fact s t o s up po rt his con t enti on that he i s enti t l ed t o D N A t est i ng . T he S t at e al so m ai nt ai ned thatG ut i err ez c oul d have be en fo u n d gui l tyas a pr i nci pal orpartyand that i dent i tyw as noti n i s s ue. 4 A ft er r eview in g the tr i al recor d, ou r opi nion on dir ectapp eal , and the p art i es’ document s , the tr i al j udge deni ed G ut i err ez’ s r eques t forappoi nt m entof couns el . T he j udge det erm i ned that no r eas onabl e gr ounds for a m ot i on forD N A t es t i ng exi s t ed. I n doi ng s o, the j udge r el i ed, i n part , on one of ourpr i ordeci s i ons obs ervi ng thata def endantcarr i es theG U T I E R R E Z —4

C a llo w a y v . S ta te , 7 4 3 S . W . 2 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 0 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ). 5 T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art. 6 4 . 0 1 (c). 6 I d. 7 I d. 8 I d. 9 bu rden of

est abli shi ng fact s i n sup po rtof a m oti on t o sup press . 5 G ut i errez fil ed a m ot i on t o r econs i der , butthe tr i al j udge deni ed i t . T he j udge
s peci fi cal l ys t at ed that the “r eques tforappoi nt m entof couns el fai l s t o al l ege f act s w hi ch
w o u ld f o rm th e b a s is o f

a f in d in g th a t th e m o tio n w a s re a s o n a b le .” G ut i err ez f

i l ed a not i ce of

appea l . B efor e us , G ut i err ez c ont ends thatthe tr i al j udge
err ed i n concl udi ng thathi s r eques tforcouns el fai l ed t o es t abl i s h r eas onabl e gr ounds fort he f ilin g o f a m o tio n f

o r D N A te s tin g . A n a ly sis T exas C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e C hapt er64 defi nes the pr ocedur es fora convi ct ed per s on t o obt ai n pos t - convi ct i on D N A t es t i ng. A r t i cl e 64. 01( c) es t abl i s hes w hen a c onvi ct ed per s on i s ent i t l ed t o appoi nt ed couns el w hen i nt endi ng t o fi l e a mot i on forpos t - convi ct i on D N A t es t i ng. T he ent i t l ement t o appoi nt ed counse l i s notabs ol ut e; i ti s condi t i oned on thr ee c riter ia. F irst, th e c o n v icte d p e rso n m u st in f o rm th e tr ia l ju d g e th a t h e o r sh e w a n ts to 6
s ubm i ta mot i on. Second, the tr i al j udge mustfi nd that“r eas onabl e gr ounds ” exi s tforthe 7 f ili n g o f a m o tio n . A n d th ird , the trial ju d g e m u st f in d th a t th e c o n v icte d p e rso n is in d ig e n t. 8 9G U T I E R R E Z —5

T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 6 4 .0 5 . 10 I d. ; Sw e a rin g e n v . S ta te , 1 8 9 S .W .3 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). 11 T EX . R. A PP . P . 2 5 .2 (a )( 2 ). 12 Sw ear i ngen , 1 8 9 S .W .3 d a t 7 8 0 . 13 W e ca nnotcons i derw hetherthe tr i al j udge er r ed i n deny i ng G ut i err ez’ s r eques tfor
a p p o in ted c o u n se l u n til w e d e c id e w h e th e r a n o rd e r d e n y in g a p p o in ted c o u n se l u n d e r A rticle 64. 01( c) i s i m m edi at el yappea l abl e. I f the tr i al j udge’ s or der d en y ing G ut i err ez appoi nt ed
c o u n se l is n o t im m e d iate ly a p p e a lab le, th e n w e d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to a d d re ss th e m e rits
o f h i s c l a i m. A s a m e n d e d in 2 0 0 3 , A rticle 6 4 .0 5 g o v e rn s a p p e a ls u n d e r C h a p ter 6 4 : A n appea l underthi s chapt eri s t o a cour t of appeal s i n the s ame m anneras an appea l of anyothercr i m i nal m att er , exce ptthati f the convi ct ed per s on w as convi ct ed i n a capi t al cas e and w as se n tence d t o death, the appe al i s a di r ect app eal t o the cou rtof cri m i nal appeals . 10 I n al l appea l s underA r t i cl e 64. 05 the “appl i cabl e fi l i ng and t i m e r equi r ement s found i n t he R ul es of A ppel l at e P r ocedur e” appl y . T hus , the ri ght of a c onvi ct ed per s on t o appea l i s s et 11 outi n T exas R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 25. 2( a) ( 2) . I n pert i nentpart , R ule 25. 2( a) ( 2) 12 pr ovi des thata convi ct ed per s on has the r i ghtt o appea l underA r t i cl e 44. 02, T exas C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, and the appe l l at e rul es . U nderR ule 2 5 . 2( a) ( 2) , ther e mustbe “a j udgm entof gui l torotherappea l abl e or der . ” Ther e i s no j udgm entof gui l ti n C hapt er64 pr ocee di ngs , butw e have s ai d an or der deny i ng D N A t es t i ng i s an “appeal abl e or der ” under R ul e 25. 2( a) ( 2) . T he tr i al j udge i s r equi r ed t o cert i fy a convi ct ed per s on’ s r i ghtt o appea l 13G U T I E R R E Z —6

I d. 14 T EX . R. A PP . P . 2 6 .2 (a ); Sw ear i ngen , 189 S. W . 3d 779, 780- 81. 15 B rig h t v. S ta te , 2 9 6 S .W .3 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 0 (T e x . A p p .— A m a rillo 2 0 0 9 ); A tki ns v. 16 S ta te , 2 6 2 S .W .3 d 4 1 3 , 4 1 5 (T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 4 th D ist.] 2 0 0 8 ); In re Fra n k lin , N o. 03- 07- 00563- C R , 2008 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 4545, at*1- 10 ( T ex. A pp. — A us t i n J une 19, 2 0 0 8 ) (no t des ign ated fo r pu b li ca ti o n ).

A tki ns , 262 S. W . 3d at415. 17 A dded by A c ts 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 th L e g ., c h . 2 , § 2 , e f f. A p r. 5 , 2 0 0 1 . 18 A m ended by A c ts 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 th L e g ., c h . 1 3 , § 5 , e f f. S e p t. 1 , 2 0 0 3 . 19 C o n lin v . S ta te , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d 9 0 7 , 9 0 8 (T e x . A p p .— B e a u m o n t 2 0 0 7 ). 20 eac h t i m e an appealab le o rderi s ent er ed. A nd a convi ct ed per s on m us tfi l e a not i ce of 14 ap p ea l w ith in thirtyd ay s af ter th e d ate tha t th e tri al j u d g e e n ters an ap p ea lable o rde r. 15 T h e q u e stio n a t issu e is w h e th e r a ju d g e ’s r e f u sa l t o a p p o in t co u n se l u n d e r A rticle 64. 01( c) i s , i n and of i tsel f, a n “appe al abl e or der ” w i thi n the meani ng of 25. 2( a) ( 2) . T he
m aj or i tyof court s of appe al s that have addr es s ed thi s i s s ue have hel d thata convi ct ed per s on m a yim m e d iate lya p p e a l a tria l ju d g e ’s d e c isio n to d e n ya p p o in ted c o u n se l u n d e r A rticle 64. 0 1 ( c ) . Th e s e c o u r t s h a v e r e l i e d o n th e Se v e n ty - Ei g h th Le g i s l a tu r e ’ s e x p a ns i ve

16 amendm entt o t he t exti n A r t i cl e 64. 05. B efor e Sept ember1, 2003, appea l s w er e l i m i t ed 17 to d eterm ination s m ad e u n d er A rt icl es 6 4 . 0 3 an d 6 4 . 0 4 . T h e S ev en ty -E igh th L eg isl ature 18 amended A r t i cl e 64. 05 t o br oaden the r i ghtt o appea l underC hapt er64. 19 T h e B e a u m o n t C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s h e ld th a t a n o rd e r d e n y in g a p p o in ted c o u n se l is noti m m edi at el yappea l abl e. T he B eaumontcourtr eason ed, “[A ] n or derr egar di ng 20G U T I E R R E Z —7

I d. 21 S p ru c e v . S ta te , N o . 0 6

– 5 -00 0 7 7 -C R , 2 0 0 5 T ex . A p p . L E X IS 6 5 4 8 , at *3 -4 22 (T e x . A p p .— T e x a rk a n a A u g . 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( n o t d e s ig n a te d f o r p u b lic a tio n ). J a m e s v . S ta te , 1 9 6 S .W .3 d 8 4 7 , 8 4 8 -5 0 (T e x . A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 6 ). 23 S e e W o lfe v . S ta te , 120 S. W . 3d 368, 372 n. 5 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2003) ( obs ervi ng 24 th a t th e S e v e n ty -E ig h th L e g isla tu re b ro a d e n e d th e sc o p e o f C h a p ter 6 4 to in c lu d e a p p e a ls n o t p re v io u s ly p e rm itte d ).

A dded by A ct s 2001, 77th L eg. , ch. 2, § 2, eff . A pr . 5, 2001. 25 appoi nt m entof couns el i s an i nt er l ocut oryrul i ng that does not fi nal l y di s pos e of t he i s s ue of
w het h er a convi ct ed per s on i s ent i t l ed t o t es t i ng. ” T he Texarkana Courtof A ppeal s has 21
cons i der ed the mer i t s of an a ppeal fr om the deni al o f a req ues tforcouns el w i thout
cons i der i ng i t s j ur i s di ct i on t o do s o, w hi l e i n another cas e, the s ame c our t cons i der ed the 22 d e n i a l o f a r e q u e s tf

o rc o u n s e l o n a n a p p e a l f o l l o wi n g th e d e n i a l o f

a mo t i o n f

o rDNA t es t i ng. 23 I ni t i al l y , w e obs erve thatther e i s a di ffe r ence betw een i s s ues thatm aybe l i t i gat ed on ap p ea l and issue s tha t are im m ed iat elyap p ea la b le. T h e S ev en ty -E igh th L eg isl ature ’s expans i ve t extrev isi on t o A r t i cl e 64. 05 l eads us t o concl ude thata convi ct ed per s on m ay i ndeed c hal l enge a tr i al j udge’ s r efus al t o appoi nt couns el . A s not ed above , befor e 2003, 24 a convi ct ed per s on w as l i m i t ed t o chal leng ing a tr i al j udge’ s det erm i nat i on underA r t i cl es 6 4 . 0 3 an d 6 4 . 0 4 o n ap p ea l. T h e 2 0 0 3 rev isi o n m ak es se n se in li g h t of the L eg isl ature ’s 25
a m e n d m e n t to A rticle 6 4 .0 1 (c ), w h ich m a d e th e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l d e p e n d e n t, i n p a rt,G U T I E R R E Z —8

A m ended by A c ts 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 th L e g ., c h . 1 3 , § 5 , e f f. S e p t. 1 , 2 0 0 3 . 26 A dded by A c ts 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 th L e g ., c h . 2 , § 2 , ef f. A p r. 5 , 2 0 0 1 ; W

i nt ers v. 27 P r es i di ng Judge of

The C r i m . D is t . C our tN o. Thre e , 1 1 8 S . W . 3 d 7 7 3 , 7 7 4 ( Te x . Cr i m. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ).

W i nters , 118 S. W . 3d at775
. 28 I d. 29 See Ex par t e D os t er , N o. PD - 0504- 09, 2010 T ex. C r i m . A pp. L E X I S 6, at*9, 30 1 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . F e b . 1 3 , 2 0 1 0 ); S ta ley v . S ta te , 2 3 3 S . W . 3 d 3 3 7 , 3 3 8 ( Te x . Cr i m. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Mo rg a n v . S ta te , 1 6 0 S .W .3 d 1 , 4 -5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). on the t r i al j udge’ s di s cr et i on. B efor e 2003, appoi nt ed couns el w as m andat ory . A t r i al 26 27 j udge’ s r efus al t o appoi ntcouns el w as notappea l abl e; r ather , the i nabi l i tyof a tr i al j udge 28 t o ex erci se anydis cret i on i n d eci ding w hethert o ap po i nt counsel m ade the refusal t o do so su b ject to m an d am u s reli ef. T h e co u rt s o f ap p ea ls that h av e co n clud ed that a tri al j u d g e’s 29 deci s i on t o denyappoi nt ed counsel is a n appea l abl e eve nthave s eemed t o confus e the d if f e re n c e b e tw e e n a n iss u e th a t m a y b e lit ig a ted o n a p p e a l an d a n iss u e th a t f o rm s th e b a sis
o f a n im m e d iate lya p p e a lab le o r d e r. A n a p p e a lab le is su e is n o t alw a y s im m e d iate ly appea l abl e under R ul e 25. 2( a) ( 2) . I n fac t , as a gener al rul e i nt er l ocut oryappea l s ar e vi ew ed
as an extr aor di narym eas ur e and a r e r ar el yperm i t t ed. 30 W e c o n clud e tha t th e d ec isi o n to d en yap p o inted co u n sel is no t an “ ap p ea lable o rde r”
un der R ul e 25 . 2( a ) ( 2) . Suc h a n a pp e a l i s pr e matur e ; a mot i on fo r a pp oi nt e d c ou ns el i s a p re lim in a ry m a tte r t h a t p re c e d e s th e in itia tio n o f C h a p te r 6 4 p ro c e e d in g s . A t th is s ta g e , aG U T I E R R E Z —9

T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art. 6 4 . 0 1 (c) (th e c o n v ict ed p erso n m u st i n fo rm 31 the c o u rtthat h e o r she “w ishe s” to su b m ita m o ti o n fo r D N A test ing ). con vict ed p ers on has on l ycon t em plat ed the fi l i ng of a m oti on for D N A t est i ng . A request 31 f o ra p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l i n n o wa y l e g a l l y b i n d s th e c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n t o f i l e a mo t i o n f

o rDNA t es t i ng. A c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n ma y a l way s o p t t o d e c l i n e t o p u r s u e DN A t e s t i n g , e v en af t er cons ul t i ng w i th couns el . O ra convi ct ed per s on m ayatt empt t o cur e any d ef ici enci es i n an i ni t i al r eques tforappoi nt ed couns el byfi l i ng another r eques t . I ndeed, ther e i s no l i m i tt o the
num berof r eques t s for appoi nt ed counse l that a convi ct ed per s on m aym ake. T hus , i n our v iew , itw o u ld b e a w aste o f ju d ici al reso u rce s to e n tert ain a c h a ll en g e to a tr ial jud g e’s
r efusal to appoi ntcouns el w hen the convi ct ed per s on has noty eti ni t i at ed C hapt er64 pr ocee di ngs . T he bett ercour s e i s fora convi ct ed per s on t o fi l e a m o t i on forD N A t es t i ng a n d , if a n d w h e n th e m o tio n is d e n ied , ap p e a l an ya lle g e d e rro r m a d e b yth e trial ju d g e in refu si ng t o appo i nt cou nsel . If a revi ew i ng cou rt determ i nes that the tri al j ud ge er re d in fai l i ng t o appoi ntcouns el , then the ca s e w i l l be r emanded t o the tr i al court s o the convi ct ed p e rs o n c a n f

ile a s u b s e q u e n t m o tio n f o r D N A te s tin g w ith th e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. C oncl usi on W e hol d thatan or derdeny i ng appoi nt ed couns el underA r t i cl e 64. 01( c) is notan i m m edi at el yappea l abl e or derunder R u l e 25. 2( a) ( 2) . T her efor e, w e di s m i s s thi s appea l beca us e w e do not have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derG ut i err ez’ s cl ai m thatthe tr i al j udge err ed in d e n y in g h is re q u e s t f o r a p p o in te d c o u n s e l.G U T I E R R E Z

— 10

D A T E D E L I V E R E D : M ar ch 24, 2010 PU BL I SH