Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-23-2022
Case Style:
Jose Ruperto Alaniz v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 02-21-00111-CR
Judge: Dana Womack
Court:
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
On appeal from The 30th District Court
Wichita County, Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Bryce Perry
Defendant's Attorney:
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Description:
Fort Worth, Texas - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with attempts to appeal the trial court’s order denying his motion requesting the appointment of counsel to assist him in obtaining postconviction DNA testing.
Appellant Jose Ruperto Alaniz attempts to appeal the trial court’s order
denying his motion requesting the appointment of counsel to assist him in obtaining
postconviction DNA testing. On September 27, 2021, we notified Alaniz of our
concern that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal because the trial court has not
entered any appealable orders. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2010) (holding that the denial of a request for the appointment of counsel to
assist in filing a motion for postconviction DNA testing is an interlocutory order that
is not immediately appealable); see also McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam) (holding that a court of appeals
generally only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant from a
judgment of conviction). We informed Alaniz that we could dismiss his appeal for
want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a
response by October 7, 2021, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R.
App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3. Alaniz has not filed a response.
Outcome: Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: