Case Name: Robert WHITFIELD, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2013-06-06
Citations: 409 S.W.3d 11
Docket Number: No. 01-12-00081-CR
Parties: Robert WHITFIELD, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: Panel consists of Justices KEYES, MASSENGALE, and BROWN.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 409
Pages: 11–17

Head Matter:
Robert WHITFIELD, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 01-12-00081-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).
June 6, 2013.
E. Alan Bennett, Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, PC, Waco, TX, for Appellant.
Christopher E. Martin, Freestone County Attorney, Ryan Palmquist, Assistant County Attorney, Fairfield, TX, for Appel-lee.
Panel consists of Justices KEYES, MASSENGALE, and BROWN.

Opinion:
OPINION
MICHAEL MASSENGALE, Justice.
Appellant Robert Whitfield has filed an appeal solely challenging the trial court's finding under article 64.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that it was not reasonably probable that he would not have been convicted if the results of DNA testing had been available during his trial. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.04 (West Supp.2012). He contends that there was insufficient evidence supporting the trial court's finding. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held in State v. Holloway, 360 S.W.3d 480 (Tex.Crim.App.2012), that a court of appeals should not address questions of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a trial court's finding under article 64.04. The Court held that because a writ of habeas corpus is only way to obtain postconviction relief based on DNA testing, any opinion of a court of appeals reviewing a trial court's findings under article 64.04 would be advisory. We lack jurisdiction to render advisory opinions. Armstrong v. State, 805 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Ex parte Ruiz, 750 S.W.2d 217, 218 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); see also Tex. Const. art. II, § 1.
We are not persuaded by the dissent's attempt to distinguish Holloway on the reasoning that it involved the State's appeal from a ruling in favor of the convicted person. The State is expressly authorized to appeal from an order issued under Chapter 64. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 44.01(a)(6), 64.05. If the review of an article 64.04 finding is advisory on the State's direct appeal, it is also advisory when the appeal arises from a finding adverse to the Chapter 64 movant.
Accordingly, following the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Holloway, we dismiss the appeal.
Justice KEYES, dissenting.