James Dwayne Crowley v. the State of Texas

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