Whitfield v. State
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 689
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Whitfield petitioned for discretionary review of the First Court of Appeals' dismissal of his Chapter 64 appeal.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals previously reversed the appellate dismissal and remanded for merits review of whether DNA results were unfavorable to Whitfield.
- The concurring opinion scrutinizes whether appellate review of a Chapter 64 finding would produce an impermissible advisory opinion.
- It conducts an extensive extra-textual statutory analysis to determine the Legislature’s intent to allow appeals under Chapter 64.
- The opinion concludes that both the convicted person and the State may appeal a convicting court’s Chapter 64 findings, and that such review is not advisory.
- It reinforces that the Court has exclusive habeas-corpus jurisdiction, but finds Chapter 64 review does not intrude on that exclusivity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the court of appeals have jurisdiction to review a Chapter 64 finding? | Whitfield asserts jurisdiction exists under Chapter 64 and related case law. | State argues limited or no appellate reach beyond traditional avenues. | Yes; the court of appeals has statutory jurisdiction under Chapter 64. |
| Would reviewing Chapter 64 findings yield an advisory opinion? | Whitfield contends review yields a final, binding determination affecting rights. | State contends advisory concerns are possible under appellate review. | No; such review is not advisory and does not violate habeas jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holloway, 360 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (overruled where advisory opinions were held to be improper)
- Wolfe v. State, 120 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (analyzes scope of Chapter 64 appeals and order types)
- Kutzner v. State, 75 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (statutory ambiguity and extra-textual factors in Chapter 64)
- Ex parte Gutierrez, 307 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference in habeas context for factual findings)
- Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (context for Chapter 64 proceedings and findings)
- Ex parte Tuley, 109 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (habeas framework and Chapter 64 interaction)