Tony Chavez v. State ( 2010 )

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
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
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 “the 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
322–23. 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DO NOT PUBLISH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
2