James Dwayne Crowley v. State of Texas - Criminal Appeal Dismissal
Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District dismissed James Dwayne Crowley's appeal in Case No. 09-26-00081-CR for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that an order denying a motion for appointment of counsel is not an appealable order under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2). Crowley sought post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
What changed
The Court of Appeals dismissed Crowley's appeal finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. Crowley appealed the trial court's January 16, 2026 order denying his motion for appointment of counsel to pursue post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellate court held that orders denying appointment of counsel are not appealable under Rule 25.2(a)(2), distinguishing this from orders denying DNA testing itself, which are appealable within 30 days.
Criminal defendants pursuing post-conviction DNA testing should note that orders denying appointment of counsel are not immediately appealable. Defendants must await a final ruling on the underlying DNA testing motion before appealing. Pro se litigants seeking post-conviction DNA analysis should understand the procedural distinction between counsel denial and DNA testing denial for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 1, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
James Dwayne Crowley v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 09-26-00081-CR
- Nature of Suit: Aggravated Robbery
Disposition: Dismissed
Disposition
Dismissed
Lead Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-26-00081-CR
JAMES DWAYNE CROWLEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 15-10-11144
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 10, 2025, James Dwayne Crowley (Crowley)1 filed a Motion
for Appointment of Counsel and Preservation/Disclosure of DNA Testing Records
1
In the “Notice of Appeal” filed by Crowley from Cause No. 15-10-11144,
Crowley uses the name “James Dwayne Crowley.” In the “Motion for Appointment
of Counsel and Preservation/Disclosure of DNA Testing Records
(Tex.Code.Crim.Proc. arts. 64.01-64.05 & 64.035[)]” which was filed by Crowley
in Cause No. 15-10-11144, he uses the name “James Dwayne Crowley, Jr.” in his
motion. In the “Order Denying Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Appoint Counsel,” in
Cause No. 15-10-11144 Crowley is named as “James Dwayne Crowley.”
1
pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01. On January 16, 2026, the trial court denied Crowley’s
motion to appoint counsel for purposes of seeking post-conviction DNA testing.
Crowley’s motion seeking “disclosure of all DNA profiles and test data generated in
this case” remains pending before the trial court.
An appeal under Chapter 64 “is to a court of appeals in the same manner as
an appeal of any other criminal matter[.]” See id. art. 64.05. A notice of appeal must
be filed within thirty days of the date the trial court signs an order denying DNA
testing. See Swearingen v. State, 189 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). An
order denying a motion for appointment of counsel is not an appealable order within
the meaning of Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Crowley argues a denial of counsel in response to a Chapter 64 filing
constitutes a disposition of the statutory request for DNA testing. This argument is
contrary to Gutierrez. See id. at 323.
Crowley is attempting to appeal an order denying his motion for appointment
of counsel. Unlike a final order denying a motion for DNA testing under article 64.01
which may be appealed, an order denying his motion for appointment of counsel is
not an appealable order. Because the order in question is interlocutory, we dismiss
2
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). Any pending motions
are denied as moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on March 31, 2026
Opinion Delivered April 1, 2026
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
3
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.