Opinion
NO. 02-14-00094-CV
04-10-2014
IN RE THEODIS DODSON RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 47.5.
The mandamus record reflects that Relator is in prison in the Connally Unit and is pro se. We can judicially notice that the unit is not in Tarrant County and that Relator is not free to present his motion in person. He has indicated that he is indigent. No family member who is not an attorney may act as his attorney. How does a person in this position "present" the motion for DNA testing other than by filing it? If the majority is holding that Relator must somehow convince prison authorities to release him so that he may present the motion in person to the trial judge to be entitled to a ruling on his motion, I cannot agree.
See Tex. R. Evid. 202.
See Tex. R. App. P. 9.1(b); Clewis v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, No. 02-08-00184-CV, 2009 WL 2414377, at *3 & n.12 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh'g).
Relator did what he was able to do both legally and physically: he filed the motion for DNA testing. The trial judge has ignored the motion. Relator is entitled to a ruling. I would therefore request the State to file a response. Because the majority instead denies Relator all relief, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
See White v. Reiter, 640 S.W.2d 586, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (orig. proceeding); In re Lockett, No. 02-08-00452-CV, 2009 WL 1740145, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 16, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).
--------
LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
JUSTICE