Hill v. State

Summary

The court dismissed Hill’s appeal from the denial of habeas and related public-records relief because his claims did not establish that the judgment was facially invalid, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, or that he was probably being illegally detained. The court also held that his actual-innocence claim had to proceed under the statutory DNA-testing framework in the court where his conviction was entered, and that he had not shown a compelling need for crime-laboratory records at public expense. The motion to file a supplemental brief was moot because Hill could not prevail even if the motion were granted.