in Re Lawrence G. Quinton

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00362-CR

No. 10-15-00363-CR

IN RE LAWRENCE G. QUINTON

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court denied Relator’s pro se motion for DNA testing and for appointment of counsel in each case below. Relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to appoint counsel and to order DNA testing, and ordering the State to produce the alleged biological evidence to be tested.1

“Mandamus relief may be granted if the relator can demonstrate that (1) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial and (2) the relator has no other adequate legal remedy.” In re Ludwig, 162 S.W.3d 454, 455 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, orig. proceeding) (citing Neveu v. Culver, 105 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (orig. proceeding)). Because a trial court’s decision to grant a motion for DNA testing or a motion to appoint counsel is discretionary, not purely ministerial, mandamus relief is not proper. See id. at 454-55; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 64.01(c), 64.03(a) (West Supp. 2014). Also, because the denial of a motion for DNA testing and the denial of a motion for appointment of counsel are appealable, Relator has an adequate legal remedy by appeal. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (holding that denial of article 64.01(c) motion for appointment of counsel is appealable issue, but not immediately appealable in interlocutory appeal); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 64.05 (West Supp. 2014); cf. Neveu, 162 S.W.3d at 642-43. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writ of mandamus.

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins (Chief Justice Gray concurs in the result without opinion) Petitions denied

Opinion delivered and filed December 10, 2015

Do not publish [OT06]

In re Quinton Page 2