IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00136-CR

MICHAEL SHAWN SADLER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14104-A-BCCR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Shawn Sadler appeals from a judgment that denied his motion for postconviction DNA testing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. Ch. 64 (West Supp. 2014). Sadler 

complains that the trial court erred by denying his motion because newer technologies 

and techniques are available to analyze the items at issue and because he established a 

greater than fifty percent likelihood that he would not have been convicted had 

favorable results been obtained from the testing in question. Because we find no error, 

we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Sadler v. State Page 2

Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the procedures for a 

defendant to file a post-conviction motion for forensic DNA testing of biological 

material. The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the defendant 

that sets forth factual statements necessary to support the motion. Article 64.01 states 

that the motion may request testing of evidence that was in the State’s possession at the 

time of trial and that was secured in relation to the offense of which the defendant was 

convicted. Further, as it relates to this proceeding, a defendant must show that the 

sample, “although previously subjected to DNA testing, can be subjected to testing with 

newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more 

accurate and probative than the results of the previous test.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 64.01(b)(2). Sadler filed an affidavit in support of his motion that stated that 

the items in question were tested for DNA but no profile was generated. Sadler averred 

that newer methods of testing that are more accurate are available, but did not explain 

any further what those methods are and why they would be more accurate than the 

method used prior to his trial.

In its response to Sadler’s motion, the State filed an affidavit by the DPS lab 

supervisor who had performed the initial DNA testing before Sadler’s trial. The 

supervisor stated that testing was attempted on the items described in Sadler’s motion 

but that there was insufficient DNA present to generate a DNA profile on those items. 

Further, the supervisor stated that he was familiar with the testing methods at the time 
Sadler v. State Page 3

of Sadler’s trial as well as the methods in use at the present time and there is no newer 

testing method that would reasonably result in more accurate results.

The trial court denied Sadler’s motion without an oral or “live” hearing based on 

the motion and the State’s response, including the affidavits attached to each. On 

appeal, Sadler argues that because of the passage of approximately eight years from the 

original testing to the date of the motion, newer techniques must be available that are 

more discriminating. 

 In reviewing a trial court’s decision to deny a motion for post-conviction DNA 

testing, where the trial record and the affidavit of the appellant are the only sources of 

information supporting the motion, the trial court is in no better position than we are to 

make its decision, and we review the issues de novo. Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361, 363 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (because trial court did not hold live hearing on request for 

DNA testing, reviewing court would conduct de novo review as trial court was in no 

better position to determine issues). Even if we assume that the items in question 

contained biological material, it was Sadler’s burden to show that newer techniques are

available that would reasonably result in more accurate results. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(b)(2); Swearingen v. State, 303 S.W.3d 728, 733-34 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2010); Dinkins v. State, 84 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Sadler did not 

expressly set forth a specific newer technique at all in his motion or affidavit. Because 

of this, he did not set forth statements of fact necessary to support his motion. TEX.
Sadler v. State Page 4

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(a-1). Based on our review of the record as presented 

to the trial court, we do not find that the trial court erred by denying Sadler’s motion. 

Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 12, 2015

Do not publish

[CRPM]