Chavez v. State
Tex. App.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Miles Wilson, Jr. v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Austin
- 2026In Re Benjamin Oshea Calhoun v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
- 2026In Re Erica D. Haywood v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
- 2026In Re Keonte Kishon Reescano v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
- 2025In Re Carne Mwangi v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
- 2024Jabari Antwan Sample v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2023Lawrence Allen Fuller v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2022in Re Marco Koole Tex. App.
- 2022in Re Willie James Brumfield Tex. App.
- 2022in Re Christian Ernesto Garcia Tex. App.
Cites 3 cases
- Watson v. State
- Johnston v. State
- State v. Roberts
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Oscar Humberto CHAVEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges
- Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK and Justices JENNINGS and HIGLEY.
Attorneys
- Ernest Davila, Houston, TX, for Appellant.
- Peyton Z. Peebles, III, Assistant District Attorney, Charles A. Rosenthal, Jr., District Attorney — Harris County, Houston, TX, for Appellee.
Appellant, Oscar Humberto Chavez, in 1989, pleaded no contest to aggravated sexual assault of a child and the trial court sentenced him to 45 years’ confinement. In 2002, appellant filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing, which the trial court denied. In a single point of error, appellant contends that the State denied him due process of law by destroying material DNA evidence.
BACKGROUND
Without a hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for DNA testing and adopted the State’s proposed findings of fact. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal, specifically appealing the trial court’s denial of post-conviction DNA testing. However, in his brief, appellant, who is now represented by appointed counsel, contends instead that the State denied him due process by destroying material DNA evidence.
DISCUSSION
We have no jurisdiction to consider appellant’s complaint.
Jurisdiction must be vested in a court by constitution or statute. State v. Roberts, 940 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). Article V, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution provides that the courts of appeals shall “have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law.” Tex. Const, art. V, § 6. When the issue is the preservation of evidence containing biological material, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for any relief by the lower court, nor authorize an appeal to a court of appeals. Tex.Code CRIM. PROC. Ann. art. 38.39 (Vernon 2001); Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, pet. ref'd). In addition, in a non-capital case, an appeal to this Court from the denial of a motion for post-conviction DNA testing is limited to findings by the lower court. Tex.Code CRIM. Prog. Ann. art. 64 (Vernon 2001); Watson, 96 S.W.3d at 500 (appeal to appellate court limited to findings by the convicting court under article 64.03 or 64.04).
Here, appellant alleges that his constitutional right to due process of law was violated when the State destroyed material DNA evidence, but he does not attack the findings of the trial court. Therefore, appellant’s claim is not valid as an appeal from the denial of a motion for DNA testing under article 64. Tex.Code Crim. PROC. Ann. art. 64 (Vernon 2001); Watson, 96 S.W.3d at 500. In effect, appellant’s claim amounts to a request for habeas relief. Watson, 96 S.W.3d at 500. A court of appeals does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in felony cases. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon Supp.2004).
Accordingly, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction. See Johnston v. State, 99 S.W.3d 698, 702-03 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. ref'd) (to the extent appellant sought release because the State failed to preserve evidence possibly containing biological material, appellate court determined it would have no jurisdiction to grant him that remedy) (citing Watson, 96 S.W.3d at 500).
. U.S. Const, amend. XIV; Tex. Const, art. I, § 19.