Jerry Moore v. State ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                                    NO. 07-02-0039-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT AMARILLO
    PANEL A
    JULY 8, 2002
    ______________________________
    JERRY MOORE, APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
    _________________________________
    FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
    NO. 19633-C; HONORABLE PATRICK A. PIRTLE, JUDGE
    _______________________________
    Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
    Appellant Jerry Moore, a penal inmate, is seeking to obtain DNA testing pursuant
    to the newly enacted Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant was
    convicted of burglary in 1980. Chapter 64 became effective April 5, 2001. By virtue of that
    chapter, a convicted person may file a motion in his convicting court seeking DNA testing
    of evidence available at the time of his conviction, but which has not been tested. Tex.
    Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01 (Vernon Supp. 2002). Article 64.01 requires that a
    motion filed under that article be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts
    supporting the motion. 
    Id. at art.
    64.01(a).
    On December 11, 2001, appellant filed a document in the trial court (his convicting
    court) in which he requested DNA testing under article 64.01. He averred the record was
    needed so that he could “point out the specific areas in his records that support his request
    for DNA testing.” On December 13, 2001, by written order, the trial court overruled his
    motion. Appellant now seeks to appeal that order.
    Appellant has filed a pro se brief in which he argues the denial of his request denies
    him his due process rights and effectively precludes him from obtaining the benefits of
    chapter 64 because 1) without a record, he cannot provide the specific facts required to
    show his entitlement to the relief he requests, and 2) he could be subject to liability for
    submitting an affidavit based on his potentially erroneous memory of events that occurred
    over 20 years earlier. The State has filed a reply brief.
    Our first obligation is to determine if we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Article
    64.05 provides for an appeal from a finding under articles 64.03 (order for testing) and
    64.04 (finding as to whether the results of testing were favorable) to a court of appeals,
    unless the conviction was for a capital offense, in which case the appeal is to the Court of
    Criminal Appeals. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.05 (Vernon Supp. 2002); see also
    Kutzner v. State, No. 74,135, slip op., 
    2002 WL 532423
    (Tex.Crim.App. April 10, 2002)
    (discussing appellate rights under Chapter 64). This statute provides that a denial of an
    2
    order to have DNA tested or a finding that the results were not favorable is appealable.
    See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(2) (on perfecting appeal from a judgment “or other appealable
    order”). The order from which appellant seeks to appeal is not within the scope of article
    64.05 and is, therefore, interlocutory. Thus, appellant can only present this complaint in
    the context of an appeal from the denial of a motion for DNA testing or an appeal from the
    finding as to the results of a DNA test.
    Without expressing any opinion on the merits of appellant’s complaint, we find we
    have no jurisdiction at this time. Thus, we must, and do, dismiss this appeal for lack of
    jurisdiction.
    John T. Boyd
    Chief Justice
    Publish.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-02-00039-CR

Filed Date: 7/8/2002

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/7/2015