Charles Raymond Lee, Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00252-CR Charles Raymond Lee, Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 03-798-K277, THE HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2005, a jury found appellant Charles Raymond Lee, Jr., guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and assessed a term of life imprisonment for each count. Court affirmed Lee’s convictions on appeal. This See Lee v. State, No. 03-05-00211-CR, 2006 WL 1358457, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin May 19, 2006, no pet.). Since then, Lee has filed multiple motions for post-conviction DNA testing, which the district court has denied. See Lee v. State, No. 03-16-00683-CR, 2016 WL 6677933, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 9, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Lee, No. 03-10-00750-CR, 2011 WL 3518143, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 11, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Lee, No. 03-09-00662-CR, 2010 WL 1930136, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Austin May 14, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Now, Lee has filed a notice of appeal from what he claims is an order by the district court denying his latest motion for post-conviction DNA testing. However, the record does not contain any order denying that motion or even a copy of the motion itself. Because the record contains no appealable order or any indication that the district court has filed or ruled on the motion, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 See State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 258–59 & n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); see also Rector v. State, No. 01-19-00751-CR, 2020 WL 5269423, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 3, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). __________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: June 22, 2022 Do Not Publish To the extent that Lee might be challenging the district court’s failure to file or rule on his latest motion for DNA testing, the appropriate remedy would be to file with this Court a petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). 1 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.
