Summary
vacating a trial court's order because the State conceded error
Summary of this case from In the Int. of A.J.R., 13-08-00607-CVOpinion
No. 05-07-00849-CR
Opinion issued April 8, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F81-09361-L.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, RICHTER, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Gerald Randle appeals the trial judge's June 4, 2007 order denying his motion for post-conviction forensic DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01-.05 (Vernon 2006 Supp. 2007). In a single issue, appellant claims the trial judge abused his discretion in denying appellant's motion because the reports attached to the State's response to his motion and relied on by the trial judge in making his ruling "are insufficient to show that they relate to the offense alleged in the indictment of [appellant's] case." The State concedes "that at least one of the reports does not appear to relate to [appellant's] offense" and asks the Court to vacate the trial court's order and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. In light of the State's request and without considering the merits of appellant's complaint, we vacate the trial court's June 4, 2007 order denying appellant's motion and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.