In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00080-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 16th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. F-2007-2317-A

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Pittman and Birdwell, JJ.

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

TERRANCE FORD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se appellant Terrance Ford appeals the trial court’s denial of his 

postconviction motion for scientific testing. We construe his brief as raising two 

issues: the trial court erred by not appointing counsel to represent him, and the trial 

court erred by denying his motion on its merits. We reject both arguments and affirm 

the trial court’s order denying the postconviction motion.

Background

In 2009, Ford began serving a sentence of confinement for life for possessing 

while intending to deliver nearly four kilograms of cocaine.1In 2018, he filed a motion 

for postconviction scientific testing under chapter 64 of the code of criminal 

procedure.2 He alleged that items “collected in relation to the offense” could “yield 

[detectable] and testable physical evidence that was . . . not tested nor detected for the 

[trial].” More specifically, he appeared to ask for testing to determine the presence of 

“adulterants and dilutants” within the cocaine. He did not explain how the presence 

of adulterants or dilutants, if any, would impact his conviction. Rather, in a conclusory 

fashion, he stated that the presence of adulterants or dilutants would be 

“exculpatory.” He also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. 

 

1See Ford v. State, No. 02-09-00112-CR, 2010 WL 4261601, at *1–*3 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth Oct. 28, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication).

2See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01–.05 (West 2018). 
3

In the State’s response, it argued that “testing of the seized cocaine, and any 

attendant adulterants or dilutants, is . . . outside the purview of Chapter 64.” The State 

further represented that no law enforcement entity possessed testable biological 

material related to Ford’s case. 

The trial court denied Ford’s request for the appointment of counsel, finding 

that he did not have reasonable grounds for filing his chapter 64 motion. The trial 

court also denied Ford’s motion for testing of the cocaine. Ford brought this appeal. 

No Entitlement to Testing or to Counsel

Ford appears to argue that the trial court erred by denying his chapter 64 

motion on its merits and by denying his motion for the appointment of counsel. 

Chapter 64 allows a convicted person to file in the convicting court a motion for 

forensic DNA testing of evidence that has a reasonable likelihood of containing 

biological material. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01(a-1). “Biological material” 

includes “blood, semen, hair, saliva, skin tissue or cells, fingernail scrapings, bone, 

bodily fluids, or other identifiable biological evidence that may be suitable for forensic 

DNA testing.” Id. art. 64.01(a)(1). Upon receipt of a chapter 64 motion, the 

convicting court “shall appoint counsel for the convicted person if . . . the court finds 

reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed, and the court determines that the person 

is indigent.” Id. art. 64.01(c). The court may grant a chapter 64 motion only if the

court finds that, among other requirements, “there is a reasonable likelihood that the 

evidence contains biological material suitable for DNA testing.” Id. art. 64.03(a)(1)(B). 
4

In his motion for postconviction scientific testing, Ford did not allege that any 

evidence exists that may contain biological material, and he did not ask for DNA 

testing. Rather, he asked for testing of cocaine for the presence of adulterants or 

dilutants. As the State argued in the trial court, such testing is beyond the scope of 

chapter 64, and the trial court had no authority to consider granting it. See id. arts. 

64.01(a-1), .03(a)(1)(B); see also Ex Parte White, 506 S.W.3d 39, 51 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 136 (2017); Sheppard v. State, No. 02-12-00234-CR, 2013 

WL 3488264, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 11, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (“In this case, Sheppard is attempting to use his chapter 64 

motions to test the amount of a controlled substance and not DNA. This he cannot 

do.”); Jones v. State, No. 13-05-00718-CR, 2006 WL 1919823, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi July 13, 2006, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) 

(“Testing of weights and types of cocaine is beyond the scope of chapter 64 because 

the chapter does not authorize . . . testing of non-biological material.”). Because 

Ford’s motion did not meet chapter 64’s requirements, we hold that the trial court did 

not err by denying it. See Sheppard, 2013 WL 3488264, at *1.

Likewise, the trial court did not err by denying Ford’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the trial court 

reasonably found that no reasonable grounds existed for Ford’s motion for 

postconviction testing, and we conclude that the trial court therefore did not err by 

not appointing counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01(c); Ex parte 
5

Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883, 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (“Reasonable grounds are 

present when the facts stated in the request for counsel or otherwise known to the 

convicting court reasonably suggest that a ‘valid’ or ‘viable’ argument for testing can 

be made.”); Duran v. State, No. 02-17-00405-CR, 2018 WL 3075030, at *3 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth June 21, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication).

Finally, to the extent that Ford’s arguments on appeal broadly challenge his 

conviction on other grounds, those challenges are beyond the scope of a chapter 64 

proceeding, and we do not consider them. See In re Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Tex. 

App.—Austin 2012, no pet.).

For all of these reasons, we overrule Ford’s issues.

Conclusion

Having overruled Ford’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s order denying his 

motion for postconviction scientific testing.

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: September 27, 2018