in Re Cheyenne Pate
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-09-00381-CR
IN RE CHEYENNE PATE
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cheyenne Pate seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Respondent, the
Honorable Patrick H. Simmons of the 77th District Court of Limestone County, to
appoint counsel and reconsider his motion for DNA testing.1
Mandamus relief may be granted if the relator can demonstrate that (1) the act
sought to be compelled is purely ministerial and (2) the relator has no other adequate
legal remedy. In re Ludwig, 162 S.W.3d 454, 454 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, orig.
proceeding) (citing Neveu v. Culver, 105 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)).
1 Pate’s application is defective because: (1) his certification does not comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j); (2) his proof of service does not comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5; and (3) he failed to include the required record pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. Nevertheless, we will apply Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and disregard these deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. A “convicting court is required to appoint counsel only if it determines that the
convicted person is indigent and finds reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed.”
Ludwig, 162 S.W.3d at 454-55 (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(c) (Vernon
Supp. 2009)). “[E]ven if the convicting court determines that a convicted person is
indigent, the court would not be required to appoint counsel if it found there were no
reasonable grounds for the motion to be filed--a finding we would review for an abuse
of discretion.” Id. at 455. Appointment of counsel is not a purely ministerial act. See id.
Thus, Pate cannot satisfy the first requirement for mandamus relief. Id.; see In re Scott,
No. 06-08-00096-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7075, at *2-5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Sept. 24,
2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We, therefore, deny Pate’s petition for writ of
mandamus.
FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Writ denied Opinion delivered and filed December 30, 2009 [OT06]
In re Pate Page 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
in Re Cheyenne Pate (in Re Cheyenne Pate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.