Isidro Ramos III v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                   COURT OF APPEALS
    REBECA C. MARTINEZ                 FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT                 MICHAEL A. CRUZ,
    CHIEF JUSTICE                      CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER                   CLERK OF COURT
    PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ                     300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200
    LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA                    SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037
    IRENE RIOS                          WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX                       TELEPHONE
    BETH WATKINS                                                                          (210) 335-2635
    LIZA A. RODRIGUEZ
    LORI I. VALENZUELA                                                                    FACSIMILE NO.
    JUSTICES                                                                             (210) 335-2762
    June 21, 2021
    Isidro Ramos                                     Lauren D. Zamora
    #2150358                                         Bexar County District Attorney's
    Coffield Unit                                    Office
    2661 FM 2054                                     300 Dolorosa, 5th Floor
    Tennessee Colony, TX 75884                       San Antonio, TX 78205
    * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
    Neil A. Calfas
    Law Office of Neil Calfas
    540 S. St. Mary's Street
    San Antonio, TX 78205
    * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
    RE:     Court of Appeals Number:       04-20-00564-CR
    Trial Court Case Number:       2015CR9685
    Style: Isidro Ramos III
    v.
    The State of Texas
    Enclosed please find the order which the Honorable Court of Appeals has
    issued in reference to the above styled and numbered cause.
    If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
    Very truly yours,
    MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
    ______________________
    Cecilia Phillips
    Deputy Clerk, Ext. 5-3221
    cc: Joe D. Gonzales (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
    Barbara Paulissen (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
    Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    June 21, 2021
    No. 04-20-00564-CR
    Isidro RAMOS III,
    Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2015CR9685
    Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction
    DNA testing under Chapter 64. The trial court found that “there was sufficient evidence
    establishing [appellant]’s identity and guild in this cause.” In its order, the trial court did “not
    find reasonable grounds for [appellant’s] motion for post-conviction DNA testing to be filed.”
    On April 29, 2021, appellant filed a pro se brief in this appeal. He now files a motion for
    appointment of appellate counsel. “An indigent convicted person intended to file a motion for
    post-conviction DNA testing” “has a limited right to appointed counsel.” Ex parte Gutierrez, 
    337 S.W.3d 883
    , 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64.01(c).
    Entitlement to appointed counsel is “conditioned on the trial judge’s finding ‘that reasonable
    grounds exist for the filing of a motion.’” Ex parte Gutierrez, 
    337 S.W.3d at 889
     (quoting
    Gutierrez v. State, 
    307 S.W.3d 318
    , 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)); see also TEX. CODE CRIM.
    PROC. art. 64.01(c) (“The convicting court shall appoint counsel for the convicted person if the
    person informs the court that the person wishes to submit a motion under this chapter, the court
    finds reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed, and the person is indigent.”). “If all of the
    perquisites set out above are met, the convicting court must order testing.” Ex parte Gutierrez,
    
    337 S.W.3d at 889-90
    . “Then, after ‘examining the results of testing under Article 64.03, the
    convicting court must hold a hearing and make a finding as to whether, had the results been
    available during the trial of the offense, it is reasonably probable that the person would not have
    been convicted.’” 
    Id.
     quoting TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64.04).
    Here, the trial court in its order did “not find reasonable grounds for [appellant’s] motion
    for post-conviction DNA testing to be filed.” Thus, appellant is not entitled to appointed counsel
    unless that finding by the trial court was erroneous. Accordingly, we carry appellant’s motion
    with the appeal. See Ex parte Guiterrez, 
    337 S.W.3d at 890
     (on submission of appeal
    determining whether appellant was entitled to appointed counsel by considering whether
    “reasonable grounds” existed for filing of the post-conviction motion for DNA testing).
    _________________________________
    Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
    court on this 21st day of June, 2021.
    ___________________________________
    MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-20-00564-CR

Filed Date: 6/21/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/22/2021