X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In 1995 a jury found Mitchell Austin Baker guilty of the felony offenses of aggravated sexual assault and compelling prostitution. He was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. The judgments of conviction were affirmed on appeal in 1998. In 2002, Baker moved for forensic DNA testing. The convicting court appointed an attorney for him. After receiving the state’s explanation that no biological material was collected in the applicant’s cases, the court denied testing without holding a hearing. Baker appealed, and the convicting court’s decisions were affirmed. Baker, still in prison, seeks post-conviction habeas corpus relief under Sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. HOLDING:The application is dismissed. After a criminal conviction, a person is confined by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. If the conviction has been imposed without jurisdiction or by violation of constitutional protections, or if an innocent person has been convicted, the collateral procedure of habeas corpus will lie to free the person from the unlawful confinement. A Chapter 64 motion can help a convicted person who is confined by a judgment of conviction, and the statute provides appeal to correct an error in the proceeding. But a Chapter 64 motion’s failure to help does not impose an independent confinement. “If a person is confined by a judgment of conviction, counsel can assist him in seeking relief, but no assistance of counsel, however bad, can lead to an independent confinement. Neither Chapter 64 nor Article 11.07 calls for the remedy of habeas corpus.” The court observes that, in some cases, a convicted person may get relief from defective representation by counsel through appeal under that chapter. Chapter 64 does not prohibit a second, or successive, motion for forensic DNA testing, and a convicting court may order testing of material that was not previously tested through no fault of the convicted person, for reasons that are of a nature that the interests of justice require DNA testing. Baker is not confined because of any error in his Chapter 64 proceeding. Therefore the post-conviction writ of habeas corpus is not available for his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in those proceedings. OPINION:Womack, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.