In re Keith Taylor Appeal from 390th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-21-00553-CR In re Keith Taylor FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-DC-11-300144, THE HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Keith Taylor seeks to appeal the denial of his motion for DNA testing under Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 64. However, the clerk’s record does not contain the required certification of Taylor’s right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) (requiring such certification “each time” trial court “enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order”), 25.2(d) (requiring appellate record to include such certification); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.05 (providing for appeals under chapter providing for motions for DNA testing “in the same manner as an appeal of any other criminal matter”). Although the clerk’s record contains a document titled “Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right to Appeal,” the document is a blank form and therefore does not indicate whether Taylor has a right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d) (describing required contents). We therefore abate this appeal and remand the case to the trial court for preparation and filing of a completed certification regarding Taylor’s right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2) (where appellate court orders trial court to prepare certification of defendant’s right of appeal, “the trial court clerk must prepare, certify, and file in the appellate court a supplemental record”), 37.1 (requiring notice to parties if certification appears defective). A supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s completed certification must be filed with this Court no later than September 26, 2022. It is ordered on August 26, 2022. Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith Abated and Remanded Filed: August 26, 2022 Do Not Publish 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.