Taylor, Terry
WR-75,890-03
| Tex. App. | Feb 10, 2015Background
- Relator Terry Taylor, an inmate (TDCJ #1607771), filed a pro se application for writ of mandamus seeking enforcement of ministerial duties under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.01(c) and art. 2.21.
- Taylor alleges he filed a preliminary "Motion for Appointment of Counsel" (Oct. 14, 2014) so counsel could assist in filing a Chapter 64 motion for post-conviction DNA testing in his 2007 capital-murder–other-felony case (indictment: killing of Mariano Sanchez during robbery).
- Taylor claims the Bexar County District Clerk (Donna Kay McKinney) and the 144th District Court failed to provide notice/transmit the district court’s denial of that preliminary motion and failed to file or transmit any answers or a certificate showing the date of transmittal.
- Taylor contends those acts (or omissions) violate the clerk’s and court’s ministerial duties under art. 2.21 and the mandatory appointment requirement in art. 64.01(c) when a defendant is indigent and informs the court of intent to seek relief under Chapter 64.
- Taylor requests an order compelling the clerk to transmit copies of the denial, any answers filed, and a certificate of the date of transmittal, and asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to compel appointment of counsel to pursue DNA testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent/State/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district clerk must transmit notice and documents relating to denial of a preliminary motion for appointment of counsel under Art. 64.01(c) | Clerk failed to transmit the denial, answers, and a certificate of transmittal; transmission is a ministerial duty | (Implicit) Clerk/court did not comply; respondent would argue discretionary or procedural matters left to court administration | Court granted relief: ordered clerk to immediately transmit the denial, any answers filed, and a certificate of transmittal |
| Whether appointment of counsel under Art. 64.01(c) is mandatory when defendant notifies court and is indigent | Taylor: Statute is mandatory; if indigent and notifies court, court must appoint counsel to assist with Chapter 64 motion | Court/State (cited authorities) may treat some preliminary decisions as not immediately appealable; appointment may be considered mandatory but process is preliminary | Court recognized statutory authority favoring mandatory appointment when requirements met; sought transmission to enable further relief (court ordered transmission) |
| Whether failure to provide written notice or certificate constitutes actionable ministerial violation warranting mandamus | Taylor: omission violates art. 2.21 and is ministerial; mandamus is appropriate because no adequate remedy at law | Respondent likely would argue procedural or non-ministerial discretion or that relief must wait until final ruling on Chapter 64 motion | Court found mandamus appropriate to compel transmission (order granted) |
| Whether refusal to appoint counsel for post-conviction DNA testing is immediately appealable | Taylor cites cases saying appointment is mandatory | Respondent cites precedent that refusal is a preliminary decision not immediately appealable | Court relied on cited authority to address ministerial transmission first, without resolving final appointment appealability; ordered clerk to transmit denial and related documents |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Presiding Judge, 118 S.W.3d 775 (Tex. App.) (interpreting article 64.01(c) as requiring appointment of counsel when defendant is indigent and notifies the court of intent to file a Chapter 64 motion)
- Neveu v. Culver, 105 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussing requirements of art. 64.01(c))
- In re Bodriguez, 77 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. Crim. App.) (use of indigency declaration in post-conviction proceedings)
- Whitfield, 430 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. Crim. App.) (refusal to appoint counsel for post-conviction DNA testing is a preliminary decision not immediately appealable)