COURT OF APPEALS
REBECA C. MARTINEZ FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT MICHAEL A. CRUZ,
CHIEF JUSTICE CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER CLERK OF COURT
PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ 300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200
LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037
IRENE RIOS WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX TELEPHONE
BETH WATKINS (210) 335-2635
LIZA A. RODRIGUEZ
LORI I. VALENZUELA FACSIMILE NO.
JUSTICES (210) 335-2762
June 21, 2021
Isidro Ramos Lauren D. Zamora
#2150358 Bexar County District Attorney's
Coffield Unit Office
2661 FM 2054 300 Dolorosa, 5th Floor
Tennessee Colony, TX 75884 San Antonio, TX 78205
* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
Neil A. Calfas
Law Office of Neil Calfas
540 S. St. Mary's Street
San Antonio, TX 78205
* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-20-00564-CR
Trial Court Case Number: 2015CR9685
Style: Isidro Ramos III
v.
The State of Texas
Enclosed please find the order which the Honorable Court of Appeals has
issued in reference to the above styled and numbered cause.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
______________________
Cecilia Phillips
Deputy Clerk, Ext. 5-3221
cc: Joe D. Gonzales (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
Barbara Paulissen (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
June 21, 2021
No. 04-20-00564-CR
Isidro RAMOS III,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015CR9685
Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction
DNA testing under Chapter 64. The trial court found that “there was sufficient evidence
establishing [appellant]’s identity and guild in this cause.” In its order, the trial court did “not
find reasonable grounds for [appellant’s] motion for post-conviction DNA testing to be filed.”
On April 29, 2021, appellant filed a pro se brief in this appeal. He now files a motion for
appointment of appellate counsel. “An indigent convicted person intended to file a motion for
post-conviction DNA testing” “has a limited right to appointed counsel.” Ex parte Gutierrez, 337
S.W.3d 883, 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64.01(c).
Entitlement to appointed counsel is “conditioned on the trial judge’s finding ‘that reasonable
grounds exist for the filing of a motion.’” Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d at 889 (quoting
Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)); see also TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. art. 64.01(c) (“The convicting court shall appoint counsel for the convicted person if the
person informs the court that the person wishes to submit a motion under this chapter, the court
finds reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed, and the person is indigent.”). “If all of the
perquisites set out above are met, the convicting court must order testing.” Ex parte Gutierrez,
337 S.W.3d at 889-90. “Then, after ‘examining the results of testing under Article 64.03, the
convicting court must hold a hearing and make a finding as to whether, had the results been
available during the trial of the offense, it is reasonably probable that the person would not have
been convicted.’” Id. quoting TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64.04).
Here, the trial court in its order did “not find reasonable grounds for [appellant’s] motion
for post-conviction DNA testing to be filed.” Thus, appellant is not entitled to appointed counsel
unless that finding by the trial court was erroneous. Accordingly, we carry appellant’s motion
with the appeal. See Ex parte Guiterrez, 337 S.W.3d at 890 (on submission of appeal
determining whether appellant was entitled to appointed counsel by considering whether
“reasonable grounds” existed for filing of the post-conviction motion for DNA testing).
_________________________________
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 21st day of June, 2021.
___________________________________
MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court