In Re Matthew Flowers, Relator v. the State of Texas
07-25-00112-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 8, 2025Background
- Matthew Lee Flowers (relator) filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking court-ordered release of DNA test results or information regarding the DNA evidence in his case.
- Flowers requested the results or, alternatively, details on where and when the evidence was tested and the projected release date.
- The petition was directed at the Honorable Steven Emmert, presiding judge of the 31st District Court.
- Flowers relied on article 64.03(d)(3) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming it compelled the trial court to provide the requested information.
- The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus after finding insufficient legal and factual basis for Flowers' demands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to release DNA results | Court is required to release DNA results under art. 64.03(d)(3) | No evidence results exist or must be released | No duty without proof results exist or were ordered |
| Duty to provide information about DNA testing | Entitled to know where/when evidence was sent & projected release date | No legal duty to provide such information | No ministerial duty to provide such information |
| Applicability of art. 64.03(d)(3) | Article applies to Flowers' case | Applies only if DNA testing not by DPS or contracted lab | Article does not apply without evidence testing done by other lab |
| Ministerial act requirement | Writ appropriate because act is ministerial | No clear right or refusal shown | No clear right; no ministerial act established |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2007) (sets high bar for mandamus as extraordinary remedy)
- In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus issued only if clear abuse of discretion and no appellate remedy)
- In re Fitzgerald, 429 S.W.3d 886 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014) (relator must satisfy both prerequisites for mandamus)
- Booker v. State, 155 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (art. 64.03(d)(3) applies only when testing is not performed by DPS or its contractors)