Joe Henry MacK v. State

Opinion issued March 4, 2004

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-02-01093-CR

---

JOE HENRY MACK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 674190

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Joe Henry Mack, challenges the convicting court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing. In four points of error, appellant contends as follows: (1) appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel relating to his original conviction; (2) appellant was denied due process when the State destroyed exculpatory DNA evidence; (3) appellant was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel; and (4) the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for new trial.

          We affirm.

Background

          On November 18, 1993, appellant pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance without an agreed punishment recommendation and stipulated that two enhancement allegations were true. Following the completion of a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report, the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at 25 years’ confinement in prison on January 27, 1994.

          Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in the district clerk’s office on March 3, 1994. The trial court signed an order on March 15, 1994 denying appellant permission to appeal. As a result, it appears that the district clerk did not assign the appeal either to this Court or the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.

          On February 1, 2002, appellant filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing of a “glass crack cocaine pipe.” The State filed a response in which it asserted that the records of the Houston Police Department Crime Laboratory indicated that the evidence in appellant’s case had been destroyed on August 20, 1997. The State offered several affidavits in support of this assertion. The convicting court denied appellant’s request for DNA testing and adopted the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The convicting court found that no items of evidence were in the possession of the Harris County District Clerk and that the evidence in appellant’s case had been destroyed on August 20, 1997. The convicting court also found that appellant did not show that any evidence still existed in a testable condition. Therefore, the convicting court concluded that appellant failed to meet his burden to prove that exculpatory DNA test results would have proven his innocence.

          Appellant filed a pro se motion for new trial on September 30, 2002. The convicting court never expressly ruled on the motion. On October 4, 2002, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a notice of appeal stating that appellant “gives notice of appeal of the trial court’s refusal to provide him a hearing under Chapter 64” of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Anders Brief

          Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from appellant’s representation on appeal, stating his conclusion that a thorough and complete review of the record has revealed no arguable grounds of error. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why counsel believes that there are no arguable grounds of error on appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 137-38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

          Counsel advised appellant of his evaluation and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has filed a pro se response.

Complaints Regarding Original Conviction

          In his first point of error, appellant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance relating to his guilty plea, which led to his original conviction. After filing his appellate brief, appellant also filed his “Supplement Objection to PSI Report” in which appellant complains that the PSI report contained in the record is “incorrect, erroneous and misleading.” Appellant requests this Court to “strike” the PSI report.

          We do not address the merits of appellant’s first point of error and his complaints regarding the PSI report because they may be appealed only directly. See Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d) (holding that appeal from denial of Chapter 64 motion is limited to findings of lower court under articles 64.03 or 64.04 in non-capital case). The notice of appeal filed by appellant’s appointed counsel on October 4, 2002, which perfected the instant appeal, expressly stated that it was to appeal matters relating to appellant’s motion for post-conviction DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.05 (Vernon 2003) (providing that trial court’s findings under article 64.03 are appealable to court of appeals in non-capital cases). The notice of appeal filed by appellant on March 3, 1994, relating to his original conviction, was not assigned to this Court and is not the subject of the instant appeal.

          We hold that we are without jurisdiction in this appeal to consider appellant’s first point of error and his “Supplement Objection to PSI Report,” which relate to appellant’s original conviction. See Lopez v. State, 114 S.W.3d 711, 714 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (holding jurisdiction afforded appellate court under chapter 64 does not extend to collateral attacks on judgment of conviction or resurrect issues previously challenged on direct appeal). Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s first point of error and his “Supplement Objection to PSI Report” for lack of jurisdiction.  

Destruction of Evidence

          In his second issue, appellant contends that he was denied due process by the State when it destroyed purported exculpatory evidence while appellant’s post-conviction writ of habeas corpus was allegedly pending in the trial court. Appellant alleges that the exculpatory evidence would have proven his innocence. We conclude that appellant’s constitutional claim is outside the scope of an appeal from the denial of a request for DNA testing. Watson, 96 S.W.3d at 500 (concluding appellant’s claim that State’s failure to preserve biological material denied him due process of law was request for application for writ of habeas corpus). We do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases. Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2004). We hold that we have no jurisdiction over appellant’s second point of error. See Watson, 96 S.W.3d at 500.

          Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s second point of error for lack of jurisdiction.

Motion for New Trial

          In his fourth point of error, appellant contends that the convicting court erred (1) in failing to conduct a hearing on his motion for new trial filed after the trial court denied his motion for DNA testing and (2) by allowing the motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of law.

          A motion for new trial is not proper in cases in which the defendant seeks to appeal an order denying his request for DNA testing. See Welsh v. State, 108 S.W.3d 921, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (holding motion for new trial on order denying motion for DNA testing is nullity and is ineffective to extend time for filing notice of appeal because order denying DNA testing does not involve finding of guilt or imposition or suspension of sentence); see also Donovan v. State, 68 S.W.3d 633, 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding that motion for new trial is not proper in cases in which defendant is appealing order deferring adjudication of guilt because there has been no finding of guilt and no sentence has been imposed or suspended); Tex. R. App. P. 21.1 (providing, “New trial means the rehearing of a criminal action after the trial court has, on the defendant’s motion, set aside a finding or verdict of guilt.”). Accordingly, we conclude that the convicting court did not err with regard to its treatment of appellant’s motion for new trial.

          We overrule appellant’s fourth point of error.

Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

          In his third point of error, appellant contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for filing an Anders brief without sufficiently investigating any potential grounds for error. We disagree. As previously stated, appellate counsel’s brief complied with the requirements of Anders. As reflected by our disposition of appellant’s pro se points, this appeal was wholly without merit. In his Anders brief, appellate counsel noted that appellant’s primary complaint is that the State destroyed the evidence in his case and that such evidence would have proven his innocence. Appellate counsel asserts that such complaint is appropriately raised by post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, not in a direct appeal of the trial court’s denial of DNA testing. As we discussed in conjunction with appellant’s second point of error, we agree.

          We overrule appellant’s third point of error.

Conclusion

          We affirm the convicting court’s order denying appellant’s request for post-conviction DNA testing.

          We grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We note that counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and also to inform appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

                                                             Laura Carter Higley

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).