Ernest Edward Gaines v. State
This text of Ernest Edward Gaines v. State (Ernest Edward Gaines v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order entered February 1, 2017
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-01144-CR
ERNEST EDWARD GAINES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-0556570-S
ORDER Before the Court is Ernest Edward Gaines’s January 27, 2017 Second Motion for
Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Pro-Se Brief or Response to Ander’s [sic] Brief in which
Gaines requests an additional thirty days to file his pro se response because he has not received a
complete trial record and has not had access to needed reference materials.
The trial court granted Gaines’s motion under chapter 64 of the code of criminal
procedure and ordered that DNA testing be conducted on certain evidence from the underlying
trial. After reviewing the results of the testing, the trial court found that, if the results had been
available during the trial of the offense, it was not reasonably probable that Gaines would not
have been convicted. Gaines filed this appeal from the trial court’s order. Gaines’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and certified to this Court that she provided Gaines with a “full and complete record.”
Gaines contends, however, he has not received a number of documents from the trial of the
underlying case or “copies of all the “Data Information from the DNA testing results” that would
“allow [him] a fair chance to prove [his] innocence.” The documents from the underlying case,
in which Gaines pleaded guilty, are not relevant to this appeal of the trial court’s order under
chapter 64 of the code of criminal procedure. Further, the DNA test report is not in the appellate
record, and the trial court’s order reflects the only DNA test results obtained were from an
unknown female contributor.
Gaines also contends, however, that he has been unable to obtain reference materials he
needs to prepare his pro se response. We GRANT Gaines’s motion to provide him an
opportunity to obtain those materials. Gaines shall file any pro se response to his counsel’s
Anders brief by March 1, 2017. No further extensions will be granted.
/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ernest Edward Gaines v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-edward-gaines-v-state-texapp-2017.