Tony Chavez v. State ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •  

     

     

     

     

     

                                                    COURT OF APPEALS

                                                     SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                    FORT WORTH

     

     

                                          NOS.  2-10-250-CR

            2-10-251-CR  

     

     

    TONY CHAVEZ                                                                   APPELLANT

     

                                                       V.

     

    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE

     

                                                  ------------

     

            FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

     

                                                  ------------

     

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

     

                                                  ------------


    Appellant Tony Chavez filed a notice of appeal from a May 21, 2010 order denying his Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel Under Article 64.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Post-Conviction Forensic DNA Testing.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01 (Vernon Supp. 2009).  Concerned that we did not have jurisdiction over these appeals, we sent a letter to Appellant requesting a response by July 9, 2010, showing grounds for continuing the appeals.  On July 8, 2010, Appellant filed a response contending that DNA testing should have been allowed because identity was the central issue in the underlying cases.  However, the court of criminal appeals recently held that Athe decision to deny appointed counsel is not an >appealable order= under Rule 25.2(a)(2).@ Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); see Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  Because Appellant attempts to appeal the trial court=s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel rather than a final order denying a motion for DNA testing under article 64.01, we have no jurisdiction to consider these appeals.  See Gutierrez, 307 S.W.3d at 322B23.  Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.  See id; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

    PER CURIAM

     

    PANEL:  GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

     

    DO NOT PUBLISH

    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

     

    DELIVERED:  July 29, 2010



    [1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-10-00250-CR

Filed Date: 7/29/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015