In re Walter Hinton Junior Appeal from 262nd District Court of Harris County (dissenting memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed November 1, 2022. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-22-00543-CR IN RE WALTER HINTON JUNIOR, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1316867 MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION I respectfully dissent. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516, S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for postconviction DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01–.05. Article 64.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a convicted person may submit to the convicting court a motion for forensic DNA testing of evidence containing biological material. Id. art. 64.01(a)-1. The convicting court must appoint counsel only if it determines that the convicting person is indigent and the court finds reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed. See In re Marshall, 577 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 2019, orig. proceeding) (explaining 2003 legislative amendments to article 64.01(c)). Even if the convicting court determines that a convicted person is indigent, the court is not required to appoint counsel if it finds there are no reasonable grounds for the motion to be filed. In re Ludwig, 162 S.W.3d 454, 455 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, orig. proceeding). Such a finding is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard, either in mandamus or as part of the appeal of the denial of DNA testing. Marshall, 577 S.W.3d at 583, citing, Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appeal) and Ludwig, 162 S.W.3d at 455 (mandamus). Therefore, the appointment of counsel under chapter 64 involves a discretionary decision and is not a purely ministerial act. Marshall, 577 S.W.3d at 583. Because relator seeks to compel a discretionary act, appellant is not entitled to mandamus relief. Margaret “Meg” Poissant Justice /s/ Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Poissant. (Spain, J., majority). Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.
