Charles Lee Hawkins v. The State of TexasAppeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued September 26, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00667-CR CHARLES LEE HAWKINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 479960 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Charles Lee Hawkins, attempts to appeal from the trial court s order denying his request for appointed counsel to assist in filing for postconviction DNA testing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 64.01. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01 (West Supp. 2012). We dismiss the appeal. [A] motion for appointed counsel is a preliminary matter that precedes the initiation of Chapter 64 proceedings. Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). At this stage, a convicted person has only contemplated the filing of a motion for DNA testing. Id. (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(c) (providing that defendant must inform trial court that he wishes to submit motion for DNA testing)). Thus, a trial court s order denying a request for the appointment of counsel under article 64.01(c) is not an immediately appealable order. Id. Any alleged error made by the trial court in refusing to appoint counsel must be raised in an appeal from the final order denying DNA testing. Id. If a reviewing court determines that the trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel, the case is then remanded to the trial court for the appellant to file a subsequent motion for DNA testing with the assistance of counsel. Id. Here, because appellant attempts to appeal the trial court s denial of his motion for the appointment of counsel, rather than a final order denying a motion for DNA testing under article 64.01, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id.; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. 2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3
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.
