William Charles Webb v. State ( 2018 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00170-CR
WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-678-C2
ORDER
Appellant William Charles Webb, an inmate appearing pro se, has filed a notice of
appeal, seeking appellate review of the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-
conviction forensic DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On May 29, 2018, Webb also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel to represent
him in this appeal.
A convicted person has a limited, statutory right to appointed counsel during a
Chapter 64 proceeding. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(c) (West 2018);
Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Specifically, article 64.01(c)
provides that a convicted person is entitled to counsel during a Chapter 64 proceeding
when the person informs the court that he wishes to submit a motion for forensic DNA
testing, the court finds reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed, and the court
determines that the convicted person is indigent. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
64.01(c). Article 64.01(c) does not differentiate between the trial and appellate stages.
Gray v. State, 69 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order) (per curiam).
Here, the trial court denied Webb’s motion for appointment of counsel. The trial
court expressly stated in the order that Webb failed to allege any reasonable grounds for
filing a motion for forensic DNA testing and that the court was unable to find any
reasonable grounds for the filing of a motion for forensic DNA testing. We see no reason
to believe that the trial court would view the issue of Webb’s entitlement to counsel any
differently now than previously. See In re King, No. 03-17-00484-CR, 2018 WL 699326, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 1, 2018, order) (per curiam, not designated for publication)
(declining to remand for appointment of counsel and denying motion to abate).
Furthermore, we conclude that Webb has not established to us his entitlement to the
appointment of appellate counsel in this appeal. See Aekins v. State, No. 07-15-00139-CR,
2015 WL 6082312, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 15, 2015, order) (per curiam, not
designated for publication) (denying request to remand for appointment of counsel and
declining to order appointment of counsel). Accordingly, Webb’s motion for the
appointment of counsel is denied.
Webb v. State Page 2
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Order issued and filed July 3, 2018
Webb v. State Page 3