Jerome Diego Brown v. State, 02-15-00414-CR

Jerome Diego Brown pled guilty in 1996 to aggravated assault on a peace officer in cause no. 0514634D and received a 32-year sentence; a separate charge (cause no. 0554991D) was dismissed as part of the plea bargain.
Brown filed postconviction motions for DNA testing under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ch. 64: a first motion (denied in 2013) and two 2015 motions — one in 0514634D and one in the dismissed 0554991D.
The trial court denied both 2015 motions. Brown appealed both denials; he conceded the appeal as to the dismissed case (0554991D) was moot.
The trial court adopted the State’s proposed findings that Brown pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, did not appeal, and had asserted self-defense in his motion.
The court concluded identity was not an issue because Brown admitted committing the act (claimed it was self-defense), and therefore Brown lacked reasonable grounds for a Chapter 64 motion and for appointment of counsel.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal relating to the dismissed charge for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed denial of DNA testing in the convicted case (0514634D).

Issue	Brown's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not appointing counsel to pursue a Chapter 64 DNA-testing motion in cause no. 0514634D	Brown: He was entitled to appointed counsel for a Chapter 64 motion (or would proceed pro se if given the full record).	State: No appointment required because Brown failed to raise identity as an issue; no reasonable grounds for DNA testing.	Court: No error — identity was not at issue (self-defense); no reasonable grounds; appointment not required.
Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review denial of DNA testing in dismissed cause no. 0554991D	Brown: Conceded the appeal in the dismissed case was moot.	State: Addressed merits but jurisdictional limits apply.	Court: Dismissed appeal for want of jurisdiction because Chapter 64 applies only to convicted persons.

Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961) (general rule that appeals lie only from final convictions)
State v. Young, 242 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (Chapter 64 relief limited to convicted persons)
Whitaker v. State, 160 S.W.3d 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standards of review for Chapter 64 matters)
Routier v. State, 273 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (deference to trial court on credibility-based fact findings)
State v. Swearingen, 478 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (statutory prerequisites for postconviction DNA testing under article 64.03)
Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (requirements and limits for Chapter 64 relief)
Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (criteria for appointment of counsel in postconviction DNA proceedings)
Ex parte Gutierrez (Gutierrez II), 337 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (appointment of counsel conditioned on reasonable grounds for a Chapter 64 motion)
Reger v. State, 222 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (self-defense does not raise identity issue for Chapter 64 purposes)