Court Opinion

ID: 9643610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:35:38.08936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:01.931009
License: Public Domain

DAVID GAULTNEY, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent. This Court has jurisdiction. There is nothing on file with the district court that has not been decided. To simply dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds leaves the cause open indefinitely with no further ruling required by the district court.
Appellant filed in district court only a document he titled “Application & Motion for Appointment of Counsel Under Article *90964.01(c)(2) Tx Code of Crim Procedure, Senate Bill 3.” The court signed an “Order on the Convicted Person’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel” denying the motion. The district court found:
(1) identity was not and is not now an issue in this case,
(2) DNA testing under current techniques was conducted on the evidence, and
(3) there are no reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed.
Is it conceivable the district court denied the motion for appointment of counsel for the reasons stated in the order, and at the same time did not intend the order to be a denial of DNA testing under the statute? I do not see how. The district court found no reasonable grounds “for a motion to be filed.”
The judge has determined there is no basis for DNA testing. This Court has jurisdiction to review the ruling. The district court ruled correctly in this case. I would affirm the order.