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:This is a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. In June 1996, a Bell County petit jury found the applicant guilty of murder. The jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for 99 years. In February 1996, the court of appeals affirmed the applicant’s conviction and sentence. In October 2001, Suhre filed in the convicting court a pro se motion for forensic DNA testing. In June 2001, the convicting court appointed counsel to represent the applicant in the DNA proceeding. In November 2002, the convicting court denies the applicant’s motion for forensic DNA testing. The applicant’s appointed counsel, took no steps to determine whether the convicting court had ruled on the applicant’s motion and did not inform the applicant that his motion had been denied. In January 2003, the applicant filed an untimely pro se notice of appeal from the convicting court’s order denying his motion for forensic DNA testing. In February 2003, the court of appeals dismissed the applicant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. In January 2004, the applicant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court, seeking an out-of-time appeal from the convicting court’s order denying his motion for forensic DNA testing. In the application, the applicant, citing the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, argued that his “appointed counsel [in the DNA proceeding had been] ineffective for failing to take reasonable steps to advise [him] that his . . . motion for forensic DNA testing [had been] denied so that [he] could pursue [appellate] remedies.” In July 2004, the convicting court forwarded the application to this court, along with the convicting court’s recommendation that the applicant be granted an out-of-time appeal. HOLDING:The application is dismissed. The court refers to its decision in Ex parte Baker. The post-conviction writ of habeas corpus is not available for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 64 DNA proceedings. OPINION:Holcomb, 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.