Gray v. State
Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
1Opinion of the Court
ABATEMENT ORDER
2Per curiam
Reginald Keith Gray filed a pro se motion for forensic DNA testing under the provisions of newly-enacted chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01-05 (Vernon Supp.2002). The court denied his request, and Gray appealed. Gray claims he is indigent. Because we determine that an indigent person who seeks forensic DNA testing under chapter 64 is entitled to appointed counsel on appeal, we will abate this appeal to the trial court to determine whether Gray is indigent.
To determine whether Gray is potentially entitled to appointment of…
3Cases cited2 opinions
- Pennsylvania v. FinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Ex Parte MinesCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2000
4Cited by53 opinions
- Winters v. Presiding Judge of the Criminal District Court Number Three of Tarrant CountyCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2003
- Lopez v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2003
- In Re Rodriguez, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2002
- Fry v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2003
- Murphy v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2003
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.