Court Opinion

ID: 9412421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 08:06:49.510746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:18.638117
License: Public Domain

In the
         Court of Appeals
 Second Appellate District of Texas
          at Fort Worth
       ___________________________

            No. 02-22-00321-CR
       ___________________________

MIGUEL ALFONSO CRUZ DAVALOS, Appellant

                       V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS

    On Appeal from the 90th District Court
           Young County, Texas
           Trial Court No. 10667

      Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
     Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In February 2018, Appellant Miguel Alfonso Cruz Davalos pleaded guilty to

aggravated sexual assault of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to 28 years in

prison. Two years later, Davalos requested appointed counsel to assist him in filing a

motion for forensic DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01(c). The

trial court granted the motion and appointed Davalos an attorney. See id.

      After a nearly two-year-long investigation,1 Davalos’s appointed attorney

informed Davalos that he had determined that there were no grounds for filing a

DNA-testing motion because “DNA would not provide any further innocent or

mitigating evidence.” Dissatisfied with his appointed attorney, Davalos moved for a

substitute attorney. On November 9, 2022, the trial court signed an order denying

Davalos’s motion. Davalos, proceeding pro se, has appealed from that order.

      We wrote to Davalos expressing our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this

appeal because the trial court has not entered any appealable orders. In our letter, we

explained that in criminal cases, our jurisdiction is generally limited to appeals from a

conviction judgment or an interlocutory order made appealable by statute. See McKown

v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam); see

also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.05. We further explained that the statute

authorizing a trial court to appoint counsel to assist an indigent convicted person in

      The investigation was hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic, which started
      1

around the time Davalos’s counsel was appointed.

                                           2
filing a motion for forensic DNA testing does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of

a trial court’s denial of a convicted person’s request to substitute his court-appointed

counsel with new appointed counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01(c). We

warned Davalos that unless any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response

within ten days showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3.

       Davalos filed “Appellant’s Petition for Review,” which we have construed as a

response to our letter. Davalos’s response, however, does not show grounds for

continuing the appeal. Because there is no statutory authorization for an interlocutory

appeal from an order denying a request for substitute counsel to assist in filing a

postconviction DNA-testing motion, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01(c), 64.05; cf.

Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 322–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (holding that an

order denying a request for appointed counsel under Article 64.01(c) to assist in filing

postconviction DNA-testing motion is not immediately appealable).

                                                        /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

                                                        Elizabeth Kerr
                                                        Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: July 27, 2023

                                            3