## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. A P

- 7 6

, 4 0 6

E X P A R T E R U B E N G U T I E R R E Z

, A p p e l l a n t

O N D I R E C T A P P E A L

F R O M T H E 1 0 7 T H J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T

C A M E R O N C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h M E Y E R S

, W O M A C K

,

J O H N S O N

, K E A S L E R a n d H E R V E Y

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. K E L L E R

, P

. J

. a n d P R IC E

, J

. ,

c o n c u r r e d

.

O P I N I O N

A p p e l l a n t a p p e a l s f

r o m t w o t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r s

– t h e f i r s t d e n y i n g h i s r e q u e s t f o r

a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l t o a s s i s t h i m i n f i l i n g a m o t i o n f

o r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n D N A t e s t i n g

, a n d t h e

s e c o n d d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r t h e t e s t i n g i t s e l f

. W e w i l l a f f i r m

.

I

.

B a c k g r o u n d

A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r a n d s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h f o r h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n

i n t h e r o b b e r y a n d m u r d e r o f e i g h t y

- f i v e

- y e a r

- o l d E s c o l a s t i c a H a r r i s o n

. M r s

. H a r r i s o n l i v e dGutierre z P ag e 2

w i t h h e r n e p h e w

, A v e l C u e l l a r

, i n a m o b i l e

- h o m e p a r k i n B r o w n s v i l l e

. S h e o w n e d t h e

m o b i l e

- h o m e p a r k

, a n d h e r h o m e d o u b l e d a s t h e p a r k ’ s o f f i c e

. M r s

. H a r r i s o n d i d n o t t r u s t

b a n k s

, a n d

, a t t h e t i m e o f h e r m u r d e r

, s h e h a d a b o u t $ 6 0 0

, 0 0 0 i n c a s h h i d d e n i n h e r h o m e

.

A p p e l l a n t w a s o n e o f t h e f e w p e o p l e w h o k n e w a b o u t M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s m o n e y

. M r s

. H a r r i s o n

h a d b e f r i e n d e d a p p e l l a n t b e c a u s e h e w a s f r i e n d s w i t h h e r n e p h e w

, A v e l

. A p p e l l a n t

s o m e t i m e s r a n e r r a n d s f o r M r s

. H a r r i s o n

, a n d h e b o r r o w e d m o n e y f r o m h e r

. A p p e l l a n t

,

A v e l

, a n d o t h e r s r o u t i n e l y g a t h e r e d b e h i n d M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e t o d r i n k a n d v i s i t

.

A p p e l l a n t

, t h e n 2 1 y e a r s o l d

, o r c h e s t r a t e d a p l a n t o s t e a l h e r m o n e y

. O n S e p t e m b e r

5

, 1 9 9 8

, h e a n d a n a c c o m p l i c e

, R e n e G a r c i a

– w h o m M r s

. H a r r i s o n d i d n o t k n o w

– e n t e r e d

M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e t o c a r r y o u t t h i s p l a n

. A t h i r d a c c o m p l i c e

, P e d r o G r a c i a

, w a s t h e

d r i v e r

. W h e n a p p e l l a n t a n d R e n e G a r c i a l e f t w i t h M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s m o n e y

, s h e w a s d e a d

.

A v e l C u e l l a r f

o u n d h e r b o d y l a t e t h a t n i g h t

– f a c e d o w n i n a p o o l o f b l o o d

. S h e h a d b e e n

s e v e r e l y b e a t e n a n d s t a b b e d n u m e r o u s t i m e s

. M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s b e d r o o m w a s i n d i s a r r a y

, a n d

h e r m o n e y w a s m i s s i n g

.

T h e n e x t d a y

, d e t e c t i v e s c a n v a s s e d t h e a r e a f o r i n f o r m a t i o n

. D e t e c t i v e G a r c i a

, t h e l e a d

i n v e s t i g a t o r

, a l r e a d y k n e w t h a t a p p e l l a n t ’ s d r i n k i n g b u d d i e s

– A v e l C u e l l a r

, R a m i r o M a r t i n e z

,

a n d C r i s p i n V i l l a r r e a l

– h a d a l l s a i d t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s i n t h e t r a i l e r p a r k t h e e v e n i n g o f t h e

m u r d e r

. A n o t h e r w i t n e s s

, J u l i o L o p e z

, a l s o s a i d a p p e l l a n t w a s t h e r e

. 1

Mr. L opez did not know appellant. The police showed him some “loose photos,” a nd he 1

picked out appe llant in “a fe w sec onds” and w as “a bsolutely positive” about that identifica tion.

But by the time of trial, Mr. L opez was not able to identify appellant in per son.Gutierre z P ag e 3

O n S e p t e m b e r 8

, 1 9 9 8

, d e t e c t i v e s w e n t t o a p p e l l a n t ’ s h o m e

. H e w a s n o t t h e r e

, b u t

h i s m o t h e r s a i d s h e w o u l d b r i n g h i m t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n

. T h e n e x t d a y

, a p p e l l a n t v o l u n t a r i l y

c a m e t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n t o m a k e a s t a t e m e n t

. H e g a v e a n a l i b i

. H e s a i d h e h a d s e e n A v e l

C u e l l a r a n d a n o t h e r f

r i e n d

, R a m i r o M a r t i n e z

, a t t h e t r a i l e r p a r k o n t h e F r i d a y b e f o r e t h e

m u r d e r

, b u t o n t h e S a t u r d a y o f t h e m u r d e r

, h e d r o v e a r o u n d w i t h J o e y M a l d o n a l d o i n

M a l d o n a l d o ’ s C o r v e t t e a l l d a y l o n g

. T h e y w e r e n o w h e r e n e a r M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s m o b i l e

- h o m e

p a r k

. W h e n p o l i c e a s k e d h i m i f h e h a d h i s d a y s m i x e d u p

, a p p e l l a n t c u t o f f q u e s t i o n i n g

. T h e

a l i b i d i d n o t p a n o u t

. J o e y M a l d o n a l d o ’ s s t a t e m e n t d i d n o t m e s h w i t h a p p e l l a n t ’ s

.

F o u r d a y s l a t e r

, a s a r e s u l t o f s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n b y a p p e l l a n t ’ s t w o a c c o m p l i c e s

, R e n e

G a r c i a a n d P e d r o G r a c i a

, a n d t h e i r o w n i n v e s t i g a t i o n

, t h e p o l i c e o b t a i n e d a n a r r e s t w a r r a n t

f o r a p p e l l a n t

. H e m a d e a s e c o n d s t a t e m e n t

. T h i s t i m e

, h e a d m i t t e d t h a t h e h a d p l a n n e d t h e

“ r i p o f f

, ” b u t s a i d t h a t h e h a d w a i t e d a t a p a r k w h i l e R e n e G a r c i a a n d P e d r o G r a c i a d i d i t

.

H e s a i d t h a t w h e n h i s t w o c o h o r t s c a m e t o p i c k h i m u p

, R e n e G a r c i a w a s h o l d i n g a

s c r e w d r i v e r c o v e r e d i n b l o o d a n d s a i d t h a t h e h a d k i l l e d M r s

. H a r r i s o n

. R e n e G a r c i a a n d

P e d r o G r a c i a h a d t a k e n a b l u e s u i t c a s e a n d a t a c k l e / t o o l b o x f u l l o f m o n e y

. A p p e l l a n t s a i d

,

“ T h e r e w a s n o d o u b t a b o u t t h e f a c t t h a t I p l a n n e d t h e w h o l e r i p o f f b u t I n e v e r w a n t e d f

o r

e i t h e r o n e o f t h e m t o k i l l M r s

. H a r r i s o n

. W h e n I s a w t h a t P e d r o w a s g r a b b i n g t h e m o n e y

f r o m t h e t a c k l e / t o o l b o x a n d h e a r d s o m e c r u m b l i n g p l a s t i c I d e c i d e d t h a t I d i d n o t w a n t a n y

m o n e y t h a t t h e y h a d j u s t r i p p e d o f f

. ” A p p e l l a n t t o l d t h e p o l i c e t h a t h i s a c c o m p l i c e s h a d t o l d

h i m w h e r e t h e y h a d t h r o w n t h e b l u e s u i t c a s e a w a y

. A p p e l l a n t l e d t h e d e t e c t i v e s t o a r e m o t eGutierre z P ag e 4

a r e a

, b u t w h e n t h e o f

f i c e r s c o u l d n o t f

i n d t h e b l u e s u i t c a s e

, a p p e l l a n t w a s a l l o w e d o u t o f t h e

c a r

, a n d h e w a l k e d s t r a i g h t t o i t

.

T h e n e x t d a y a p p e l l a n t m a d e a t h i r d s t a t e m e n t

, a d m i t t i n g t h a t h e h a d l i e d i n h i s

p r e v i o u s o n e “ a b o u t b e i n g d r o p p e d o f f i n t h e p a r k

, a b o u t n o t b e i n g w i t h R e n e

. ” H e s a i d

P e d r o G r a c i a d r o v e t h e t r u c k a n d d r o p p e d h i m a n d R e n e G a r c i a o f f a t M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e

.

T h e i n i t i a l p l a n w a s f

o r R e n e G a r c i a t o l u r e M r s

. H a r r i s o n o u t o f h e r h o m e b y a s k i n g t o s e e

a t r a i l e r l o t

. T h e n a p p e l l a n t w o u l d c o m e a r o u n d f r o m t h e b a c k o f h e r h o m e

, r u n i n

, a n d t a k e

t h e m o n e y w i t h o u t h e r s e e i n g h i m

. B u t w h e n a p p e l l a n t r a n a r o u n d t o t h e f r o n t

, R e n e G a r c i a

a n d M r s

. H a r r i s o n w e r e s t i l l i n s i d e t h e h o u s e

. A p p e l l a n t s a i d R e n e G a r c i a k n o c k e d o u t M r s

.

H a r r i s o n b y h i t t i n g h e r

, a n d t h e n h e r e p e a t e d l y s t a b b e d h e r w i t h a s c r e w d r i v e r

. T h e

s c r e w d r i v e r “ h a d a c l e a r h a n d l e w i t h r e d

, i t w a s a s t a n d a r d s c r e w d r i v e r

. W e h a d g o t t h e

s c r e w d r i v e r f

r o m t h e b a c k o f t h e t r u c k i n a t o o l b o x a l o n g w i t h a n o t h e r s c r e w d r i v e r

, a s t a r

t y p e

. ” A p p e l l a n t g a t h e r e d t h e m o n e y

. “ W h e n h e s t a r t e d s t a b b i n g h e r

, I p u l l e d o u t t h e b l u e

s u i t c a s e f

r o m t h e c l o s e t a n d t h e b l a c k t o o l b o x f e l l

. I t o p e n e d w h e n i t f e l l a n d I s a w t h e

m o n e y

. ” A p p e l l a n t t o s s e d t h e t o o l b o x t o R e n e G a r c i a

, a n d h e a d e d o u t t h e d o o r w i t h t h e b l u e

s u i t c a s e

. R e n e G a r c i a f o l l o w e d

, a n d P e d r o G r a c i a p u l l e d t h e t r u c k a r o u n d t o p i c k t h e m u p

.

P e d r o G r a c i a d r o p p e d t h e m o f f d o w n a c a l i c h e r o a d a n d a p p e l l a n t f i l l e d “ u p t h e l i t t l e t o o l b o x

w i t h t h e m o n e y t h a t w a s i n t h e s u i t c a s e

, ” w h i l e R e n e G a r c i a f i l l e d u p h i s s h i r t

. T h e y

a b a n d o n e d t h e s u i t c a s e

, a n d P e d r o G r a c i a p i c k e d t h e m u p a n d d r o v e a p p e l l a n t h o m e

.

M u c h o f t h e m o n e y w a s r e c o v e r e d

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s w i f e ’ s c o u s i n

, J u a n P a b l o C a m p o s

,Gutierre z P ag e 5

l e d p o l i c e t o $ 5 0

, 0 0 0 t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d g i v e n h i m t o k e e p s a f e

. T h e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s t h e o r y a t

t r i a l w a s t h a t a p p e l l a n t

, e i t h e r a s a p r i n c i p a l o r a s a p a r t y

, i n t e n t i o n a l l y m u r d e r e d M r s

.

H a r r i s o n d u r i n g a r o b b e r y

. T h e p r o s e c u t i o n e m p h a s i z e d ( 1 ) t h e m e d i c a l e x a m i n e r ’ s

t e s t i m o n y t h a t t w o d i f

f e r e n t i n s t r u m e n t s c a u s e d t h e s t a b w o u n d s

, ( 2 ) a p p e l l a n t ’ s a d m i s s i o n 2

t h a t h e a n d R e n e G a r c i a w e n t i n s i d e M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e o f f i c e w i t h t w o d i f

f e r e n t

s c r e w d r i v e r s

, a n d ( 3 ) t h e f a c t t h a t f o u r d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e

– A v e l C u e l l a r

, R a m i r o M a r t i n e z

, a n d

C r i s p i n V i l l a r r e a l f

r o m “ t h e d r i n k i n g g r o u p ” a n d a n o t h e r p a s s e r b y

, M r

. L o p e z

, w h o d i d n o t

k n o w a p p e l l a n t

– a l l s a w h i m a t t h e m o b i l e

- h o m e p a r k t h e d a y t h a t M r s

. H a r r i s o n w a s k i l l e d

.

T h e j u r y w a s i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t c o u l d c o n v i c t a p p e l l a n t o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r i f i t f o u n d t h a t

a p p e l l a n t “ a c t i n g a l o n e o r a s a p a r t y ” w i t h t h e a c c o m p l i c e i n t e n t i o n a l l y c a u s e d t h e v i c t i m ’ s

d e a t h

. T h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a g e n e r a l v e r d i c t o f g u i l t

, a n d

, b a s e d o n t h e j u r y ’ s f i n d i n g s a t t h e

p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e s e n t e n c e d a p p e l l a n t t o d e a t h

.

W e a f f i r m e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e o n d i r e c t a p p e a l i n 2 0 0 2 a n d d e n i e d 3

h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s i n 2 0 0 8

. A p p e l l a n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o r w r i t o f

h a b e a s c o r p u s i n f

e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t

, b u t t h a t c o u r t s t a y e d a n d a b a t e d t h e f e d e r a l

p r o c e e d i n g s t o a l l o w t h e a p p e l l a n t t o p u r s u e u n e x h a u s t e d s t a t e c l a i m s

.

The medic al examiner testified that Mrs. Ha rrison suffe red de fensive w ounds that 2

indicated she had strug g led for he r life a nd tried to “wa

rd off blows or attac ks of some sort.” H e

said that she wa s stabbed appr ox imately thirteen times by

two differ ent instruments. One

“almost ce rtainly ” wa s a flat- head sc rew driver a nd the other w as possibly a Phillips -hea d

scre wdriver

.

Gutierrez v. State , No. AP-73,462 (Te x . Crim. App. J an. 16, 2002) ( not desig nated f or 3

publication).Gutierre z P ag e 6

A p p e l l a n t t h e n f

i l e d a r e q u e s t f

o r a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l u n d e r A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 1 ( c ) i n

t h e o r i g i n a l t r i a l c o u r t

. I n s u p p o r t o f h i s m o t i o n f o r c o u n s e l a p p e l l a n t n o t e d h e w a s s e e k i n g

D N A t e s t i n g o f t h e f

o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e :

! a b l o o d s a m p l e t a k e n f r o m t h e v i c t i m

, E s c o l a s t i c a H a r r i s o n ;

! a s h i r t b e l o n g i n g t o t h e v i c t i m ’ s n e p h e w a n d h o u s e m a t e

, A v e l C u e l l a r

,

c o n t a i n i n g a p p a r e n t b l o o d s t a i n s ;

! n a i l s c r a p i n g s t a k e n f r o m v i c t i m d u r i n g a n a u t o p s y ;

! b l o o d s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d f r o m A v e l C u e l l a r ’ s b a t h r o o m

, f r o m a r a i n c o a t l o c a t e d

i n o r j u s t o u t s i d e h i s b e d r o o m

, a n d f r o m t h e s o f

a i n t h e f

r o n t r o o m o f t h e

v i c t i m ’ s h o u s e ; a n d

! a s i n g l e l o o s e h a i r f o u n d a r o u n d t h e t h i r d d i g i t o f t h e v i c t i m ’ s l e f t h a n d t h a t

w a s f o u n d d u r i n g t h e a u t o p s y

.

A p p e l l a n t a c c o m p a n i e d h i s r e q u e s t w i t h a c o p y o f t h e a u t o p s y r e p o r t a n d l a b r e p o r t s

,

h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e i d e n t i t y o f M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s k i l l e r i s a n d w a s a n i s s u e a t t r i a l

, a n d h i s

s t a t e m e n t t h a t e x c u l p a t o r y r e s u l t s w o u l d s u p p o r t h i s p o s i t i o n t h a t h e n e i t h e r m u r d e r e d M r s

.

H a r r i s o n n o r a n t i c i p a t e d h e r m u r d e r

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e d e n i e d t h e r e q u e s t

, f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e

w e r e n o “ r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s ” f o r f i l i n g a m o t i o n f

o r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n D N A t e s t i n g

. 4

A p p e l l a n t f

i l e d a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l t h a t t h i s C o u r t d i s m i s s e d a s p r e m a t u r e

. W e

h e l d t h a t a n o r d e r d e n y i n g a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l u n d e r A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 1 ( c ) i s n o t a n i m m e d i a t e l y

a p p e a l a b l e o r d e r u n d e r R u l e 2 5

. 2 ( a ) ( 2 )

, a n d t h a t “ [ t ] h e b e t t e r c o u r s e i s f o r a c o n v i c t e d 5

See T E X .C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 64.01(c ). 4

T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 25.2(a)

. 5Gutierre z P ag e 7

p e r s o n t o f

i l e a m o t i o n f

o r D N A t e s t i n g a n d

, i f a n d w h e n t h e m o t i o n i s d e n i e d

, a p p e a l a n y

a l l e g e d e r r o r m a d e b y t h e t r i a l j u d g e i n r e f u s i n g t o a p p o i n t c o u n s e l

. ” 6

A p p e l l a n t t h e n f

i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n D N A t e s t i n g

. I n i t

, h e

a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e t h r e e m e n i n v o l v e d i n t h e r o b b e r y o f M r s

. H a r r i s o n w e r e h i m s e l f

,

R e n e G a r c i a

, a n d P e d r o G r a c i a

. B u t h e r e l i e s o n t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t o n l y t w o p e o p l e e n t e r e d

t h e h o m e t o a r g u e t h a t e x c u l p a t o r y D N A t e s t r e s u l t s ( r e s u l t s t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t h e w a s n o t

o n e o f t h o s e t w o ) w o u l d s h o w

, b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e

, t h a t h e w o u l d n o t h a v e

b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r o r s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e d e n i e d t h e r e q u e s t

f o r t e s t i n g b e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t ( 1 ) f a i l e d t o m e e t t h e “ n o f

a u l t ” p r o v i s i o n o f C h a p t e r 6 4

, a n d

,

a l t e r n a t i v e l y

, ( 2 ) f

a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h e i t h e r t h a t “ i d e n t i t y w a s o r i s a n i s s u e i n t h e c a s e ” o r t h a t

i t w a s m o r e p r o b a b l e t h a n n o t t h a t h e w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d i f e x c u l p a t o r y r e s u l t s

h a d b e e n o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h D N A t e s t i n g

. 7

I I

.

C h a p t e r 6 4 a n d t h e S t a n d a r d o f R e v i e w

T h e r e i s n o f

r e e

- s t a n d i n g d u e

- p r o c e s s r i g h t t o D N A t e s t i n g

, a n d t h e t a s k o f f a s h i o n i n g

r u l e s t o “ h a r n e s s D N A ’ s p o w e r t o p r o v e i n n o c e n c e w i t h o u t u n n e c e s s a r i l y o v e r t h r o w i n g t h e

e s t a b l i s h e d s y s t e m o f c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e ” b e l o n g s “ p r i m a r i l y t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e

. ” I n T e x a s

, 8

Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W .3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 6

See Articles 64.01( b)(1) (B ), 64.03(a )(1) (B ) & (a) (2)( A). 7

District Attorney's Off

ice v . Osborne , 129 S. Ct . 2308, 2316 (2009). See also Ex parte 8

Mines , 26 S.W .3d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (there is no constituti onal rig ht toGutierre z P ag e 8

C h a p t e r 6 4 o f t h e C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e r e q u i r e s t h e j u d g e o f t h e c o n v i c t i n g c o u r t t o

o r d e r D N A t e s t i n g w h e n r e q u e s t e d b y a c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n i f i t f i n d s a l l o f t h e f

o l l o w i n g :

( 1 ) e v i d e n c e e x i s t s t h a t b y i t s n a t u r e p e r m i t s D N A t e s t i n g ;

( 2 ) t h e e v i d e n c e w a s e i t h e r :

( a ) j u s t i f

i a b l y n o t p r e v i o u s l y s u b j e c t e d t o D N A t e s t i n g [ b e c a u s e D N A

t e s t i n g i ) w a s n o t a v a i l a b l e

, o r i i ) w a s i n c a p a b l e o f p r o v i d i n g p r o b a t i v e

r e s u l t s

, o r i i i ) d i d n o t o c c u r “ t h r o u g h n o f a u l t o f t h e c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n

, f o r r e a s o n s t h a t a r e o f

s u c h a n a t u r e t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e r e q u i r e

D N A t e s t i n g ” ] ; o r

( b ) s u b j e c t e d t o p r e v i o u s D N A t e s t i n g b y t e c h n i q u e s n o w

s u p e r s e d e d b y m o r e a c c u r a t e t e c h n i q u e s ;

( 3 ) t h a t e v i d e n c e i s i n a c o n d i t i o n m a k i n g D N A t e s t i n g p o s s i b l e ;

( 4 ) t h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y o f t h e e v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t i t h a s

n o t b e e n s u b s t i t u t e d

, t a m p e r e d w i t h

, r e p l a c e d

, o r a l t e r e d i n a n y m a t e r i a l

r e s p e c t ;

( 5 ) i d e n t i t y w a s o r i s a n i s s u e i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g c r i m i n a l c a s e ;

( 6 ) t h e c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n h a s e s t a b l i s h e d b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e

e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p e r s o n w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d i f e x c u l p a t o r y

r e s u l t s h a d b e e n o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h D N A t e s t i n g ; a n d

( 7 ) t h e c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n h a s e s t a b l i s h e d b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e

e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e q u e s t f o r D N A t e s t i n g i s n o t m a d e t o u n r e a s o n a b l y

d e l a y t h e e x e c u t i o n o f s e n t e n c e o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e

. 9

A n i n d i g e n t c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n i n t e n d i n g t o f i l e a m o t i o n f

o r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n D N A

post-conviction DNA te sting).

See 43B G eorg e E. Dix & Robert O. D awson, 43B T E X A S P R A C T I C E : C R I M I N A L 9

P R A C T I C E A N D P R O C E D U R E § 45.188 (2d ed. 2001 & 2008-09 Supp.) (setting out a summary of

Articles 64.01( a)- (b) & 64.03(a) -(b) ).Gutierre z P ag e 9

t e s t i n g n o w h a s a l i m i t e d r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l

. T h a t e n t i t l e m e n t u s e d t o b e a b s o l u t e

, 1 0

b u t i t i s n o w c o n d i t i o n e d o n t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s f i n d i n g “ t h a t r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s e x i s t f o r t h e

f i l i n g o f a m o t i o n

. ” I f a l l o f t h e p r e r e q u i s i t e s s e t o u t a b o v e a r e m e t

, t h e c o n v i c t i n g c o u r t 1 1

m u s t o r d e r t e s t i n g

. T h e n

, a f t e r “ e x a m i n i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f t e s t i n g u n d e r A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 3

, t h e

c o n v i c t i n g c o u r t m u s t h o l d a h e a r i n g a n d m a k e a f i n d i n g a s t o w h e t h e r

, h a d t h e r e s u l t s b e e n

a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g t h e t r i a l o f t h e o f f e n s e

, i t i s r e a s o n a b l y p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e p e r s o n w o u l d n o t

h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d

. ” E x c u l p a t o r y D N A t e s t i n g r e s u l t s d o n o t

, b y t h e m s e l v e s

, r e s u l t i n 1 2

r e l i e f f r o m a c o n v i c t i o n o r s e n t e n c e

. C h a p t e r 6 4 i s s i m p l y a p r o c e d u r a l v e h i c l e f o r o b t a i n i n g

c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e “ w h i c h m i g h t t h e n b e u s e d i n a s t a t e o r f e d e r a l h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g

. ” 1 3

I n r e v i e w i n g t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s C h a p t e r 6 4 r u l i n g s

, t h i s C o u r t u s u a l l y g i v e s “ a l m o s t t o t a l

d e f e r e n c e ” t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s f i n d i n g s o f h i s t o r i c a l f

a c t a n d a p p l i c a t i o n

- o f

- l a w

- t o

- f a c t i s s u e s

t h a t t u r n o n w i t n e s s c r e d i b i l i t y a n d d e m e a n o r

, b u t w e c o n s i d e r d e n o v o a l l o t h e r

W inters v. Presiding Judge of the Criminal Dis t. Court N o. Three of Tarrant C ounty

, 1 0

118 S.W .3d 773, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (forme r ver sion of Article 64.01( c) r equire d

appointment of counse l even if the appointment would be a “ useless ac t” bec ause no e vidence

containing biologica l material wa s available for testing ).

Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W .3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (explaining that 1 1

appointment of counse l in a post-conviction DNA pr ocee ding is de termined by three criter ia: (1)

defe ndant must inform the convicting court that he wishes to submit a moti on for DN A testing ;

(2) the c onvicting c ourt must find that “rea sonable g rounds” e x ist for filing a DNA motion; and

(3) the c onvicting c ourt must find that the movant is indigent); Blake v. State , 208 S.W .3d 693,

695 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (tr ial courts must now also find re asonable g rounds

for the motion to be filed)

.

Article 64.04. 1 2

Thacker v . State , 177 S.W .3d 926, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 1 3Gutierre z P ag e 10

a p p l i c a t i o n

- o f

- l a w

- t o

- f a c t q u e s t i o n s

. 1 4

I I I

.

A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s f

i v e i s s u e s o n a p p e a l

. T h e f i r s t r e l a t e s t o t h e d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n f o r

c o u n s e l ; t h e r e s t r e l a t e t o t h e d e n i a l o f t h e m o t i o n f o r D N A t e s t i n g

. W e w i l l a d d r e s s e a c h

i s s u e i n t u r n

, a l t h o u g h t h e y a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d

.

A

. A p p e l l a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l b e c a u s e “ r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s ” d o

n o t e x i s t f

o r t h e f i l i n g o f a m o t i o n f

o r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n D N A t e s t i n g

.

1

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s r e q u e s t f

o r c o u n s e l

.

A p p e l l a n t a s s e r t e d t h a t r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s e x i s t f o r f i l i n g a m o t i o n f

o r D N A t e s t i n g

b e c a u s e e x c u l p a t o r y r e s u l t s w o u l d t e n d t o s u p p o r t h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t “ h e w a s n o t p r e s e n t

d u r i n g

, d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n

, a n d d i d n o t k n o w o r a n t i c i p a t e t h e v i c t i m ’ s m u r d e r a n d i s t h u s

n o t g u i l t y o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r

. ” T h e S t a t e r e s p o n d e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t ’ s r e q u e s t f o r a p p o i n t m e n t 1 5

o f c o u n s e l w a s d e f

i c i e n t b e c a u s e e x c u l p a t o r y t e s t r e s u l t s w o u l d o n l y “ m u d d y t h e w a t e r s ” 1 6

a n d w o u l d n o t p r o v i d e a n y b a s i s f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f

. T h e S t a t e p o i n t e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g

e v i d e n c e i n a r g u i n g t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t o f i l e a m o t i o n : ( 1 ) a p p e l l a n t ’ s

Routier v. State , 273 S.W .3d 241, 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 1 4

Appellant’s Reque st For Appointment of Counsel a t 4. 1 5

The State, c iting Kutzner v. State , 75 S.W .3d 427, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), also 1 6

faulted a ppellant for not pr esenting an ar g ument that, if DNA te sting is per formed, the possible

exculpatory

results would prove him to be a ctually innocent. As a

ppellant points out–thi s is the

wrong standard be cause 1) Kutzner involved a motion for for ensic DN A testing instead of a

reque st for the a ssistance of c ounsel in the prepa ration of suc h a motion, and 2) that re ading of

Kutzner has bee n superse ded by statute, as this Court recog nized Smith v. State , 165 S.W .3d 361

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (convicte d person must prove tha t, had the re sults of the DNA test bee n

available at trial, there is a 51% cha nce tha t he would not have be en convic ted).Gutierre z P ag e 11

s t a t e m e n t

– a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l

– t h a t h e w a s p r e s e n t i n M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e w h e n t h e m u r d e r

t o o k p l a c e a n d t h a t h e a s s i s t e d i n t a k i n g t h e m o n e y ; ( 2 ) o t h e r t r i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t a p p e l l a n t a n d

a n a c c o m p l i c e e n t e r e d t h e h o m e w i t h t w o t y p e s o f s c r e w d r i v e r s

, t h a t M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s s t a b

w o u n d s w e r e c a u s e d b y t w o d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u m e n t s

, a n d t h a t M r s

. H a r r i s o n k n e w a n d c o u l d

i d e n t i f y a p p e l l a n t ; a n d ( 3 ) t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f P e d r o G r a c i a a n d R e n e G a r c i a

– r e f e r r e d t o b u t

n o t a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l

– t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s p r e s e n t i n t h e h o m e a n d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e r o b b e r y

a n d m u r d e r o f t h e v i c t i m

.

T h e t r i a l j u d g e d e n i e d t h e r e q u e s t f o r c o u n s e l f

i n d i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t “ h a s f a i l e d t o

a l l e g e a n d p r o v e t h a t r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s e x i s t f o r a m o t i o n t o b e f

i l e d u n d e r C h a p t e r 6 4 [

. ] ”

2

. A f

i n d i n g o f r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d

s r e q u i r e s m o r e t h a n a n i n a r t i c u l a t e h u n c h o r i n t u i t i o n

t o s u g g e s t t h a t e x c u l

p a t o r y r e s u l t s w o u l d h a v e c h a n g e d t h e v e r d i c t

.

T h e s t a t u t e d o e s n o t d e f i n e “ r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s

, ” b u t c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s h a v e

d e v e l o p e d s o m e g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s

. T h o u g h a c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n n e e d n o t p r o v e e n t i t l e m e n t

( o r a p r i m a f

a c i e c a s e o f i t ) t o D N A t e s t i n g a s a p r e c o n d i t i o n f o r o b t a i n i n g a p p o i n t e d

c o u n s e l

, w h e t h e r “ r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s ” e x i s t f o r t e s t i n g n e c e s s a r i l y t u r n s o n w h a t i s 1 7

r e q u i r e d f

o r t e s t i n g

. B a s i c r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e t h a t b i o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e e x i s t s

, t h a t e v i d e n c e i s

i n a c o n d i t i o n t h a t i t c a n b e t e s t e d

, t h a t t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p e r p e t r a t o r i s o r w a s a n i s s u e

, a n d

Lewis v. State , 191 S.W .3d 225, 227-28 (Te x . App.—San Antonio 2005, pet. re f’d) (the 1 7

statute requir es only

a showingof “r easona

ble g rounds” f

or a motion to be filed, not the

establishment of a “ prima fa cie” case ). See I n re Franklin , No. 03-07-00563- CR, 2008 W L

2468712 at *2 (Te x . App.—Austin J une 19, 2008, no pet.) (not desig nated f or publication) ( “an

indige nt inmate need not pr ove his entitlement to testing a s a pre condition for obtaining

appointed counse l to assist hi m in filing a te sting motion.”).Gutierre z P ag e 12

t h a t t h i s i s t h e t y p e o f c a s e i n w h i c h e x c u l p a t o r y D N A r e s u l t s w o u l d m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e

. 1 8

C o u r t s h a v e f

o u n d t h a t r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s f o r t e s t i n g a r e n o t p r e s e n t i f n o b i o l o g i c a l

e v i d e n c e e x i s t s o r i f i t h a s b e e n d e s t r o y e d

, o r i f i d e n t i t y w a s n o t o r i s n o t a n i s s u e

. 1 9 2 0

R e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s a r e p r e s e n t w h e n t h e f a c t s s t a t e d i n t h e r e q u e s t f o r c o u n s e l o r o t h e r w i s e

k n o w n t o t h e c o n v i c t i n g c o u r t r e a s o n a b l y s u g g e s t t h a t a “ v a l i d ” o r “ v i a b l e ” a r g u m e n t f o r

t e s t i n g c a n b e m a d e

. 2 1

Article 64.03( a)( 1)(A) (i), (a )(1) (B ). 1 8

Atkins v. State , 262 S.W .3d 413, 416-17 (Te x .App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2008, pet. 1 9

ref ’d) ( skirting que stion of what “r easona ble g rounds” mea

ns “bec ause a

ppellant has fa iled to

alleg e eve n that DNA wa s taken a nd exis ts”), abrogated on other grounds by Gutierrez v . State

, 307 S.W .3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Jame s v. State, 196 S.W .3d 847, 850 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana

2006, pet. re f’d) (“A motion for post-conviction DNA te sting may reque st

testing only

of evide nce c ontaining biolog ical mater ial ‘that wa s secur ed in re lation to the offense

that is the basis of the cha lleng ed convic tion[ .]’ . . . J ames’ motion does not make this statutoril y

require d reque st, nor does it alleg e fa cts which would for m the basis of a f

inding that the motion

was re asonable . Acc ording ly , the trial cour t properly denied James’ re quest for c ourt-appointed

counsel be cause his application fails to show there is any rea sonable g round for

the

application.”) ; Blake v . State , 208 S.W .3d 693, 695 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (“ the

trial court ha d evidenc e that no biolog ical mater ial still exis ted that could be submitted for DNA

testing. We be lieve that this evidenc e provide d a suff icient justification for the tr ial court to

deter mine there wer e no re asonable g rounds for the Chapter 64 motion to be filed.” ).

Lewis , 191 S.W .3d at 229 (“ Be cause L ewis’ motion for post convic tion DNA testing 2 0

fails to meet two of the prec onditions t o obtaining D NA testing under Chapte r 64, spec ifically

that the evidenc e still ex ists and that identity is or was a

n issue in the case , it also fails to

demonstrate ‘ rea sonable g rounds for a motion to be filed.’”)

.

House Rese arc h Org anization, Bill Analy sis, Tex . H.B . 1011, 78 L eg ., R.S. (2003) 2 1 t h

(Supporters Say

) (“ By requiring rea sonable g rounds bef ore a ppointing an attorney

for a n indige nt

person se eking post-conviction DNA te sting, HB 1011 would wee d out frivolous claims while

still ensuring a per son with a valid claim ac cess to testing . . . . When in doubt, a judge would err

on the side of c aution and appoint a la wy er in c ase the convicted pe rson had a valid claim.”)

. See

In re Frank

lin , 2008 WL 2468712 at *2 (“ rea sonable g rounds for a testing motion are prese nt

when the f

acts stated in the r equest for counsel or othe rwise known to the tr ial court re asonably

sug g est that a plausible a

rg ument for testing can be made. Conver sely , rea sonable g rounds for aGutierre z P ag e 13

A n a n a l o g y t o t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n “ r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n ” a n d

“ p r o b a b l e c a u s e ” c o n s t r u c t m a y b e h e l p f u l : B e f o r e a p p o i n t i n g a n a t t o r n e y

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e

n e e d s “ r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s ” t o b e l i e v e t h a t ( 1 ) a f a v o r a b l e f

o r e n s i c t e s t i s a v i a b l e

, f a i r a n d

r a t i o n a l p o s s i b i l i t y

, a n d ( 2 ) s u c h a t e s t c o u l d p l a u s i b l y s h o w t h a t t h e i n m a t e w o u l d n o t h a v e

b e e n c o n v i c t e d

. B e f

o r e o r d e r i n g t e s t i n g

, t h e i n m a t e m u s t e s t a b l i s h

, b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

t h e e v i d e n c e

, “ p r o b a b l e c a u s e ” t h a t h e w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d i f e x c u l p a t o r y D N A

r e s u l t s a r e o b t a i n e d

.

A l t e r n a t i v e l y

, o n e c o u l d a p p r o a c h t h e “ r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s ” q u e s t i o n s i n t h e o p p o s i t e

d i r e c t i o n

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e c o u l d s i m p l y a s s u m e t h a t t h e r e s u l t o f a n y p r o p o s e d D N A t e s t i n g

i s “ e x c u l p a t o r y ” i n t h e s e n s e t h a t t h e t e s t w i l l p r o v e t h a t t h e i n m a t e i s n o t t h e s o u r c e o f t h a t

D N A

. T h a t i s a “ f

a v o r a b l e ” o r “ e x c u l p a t o r y ” t e s t r e s u l t

. B u t i f t h a t “ f a v o r a b l e ” o r

“ e x c u l p a t o r y ” f

i n d i n g w o u l d n o t c h a n g e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e i n m a t e w o u l d s t i l l h a v e b e e n

c o n v i c t e d

, t h e n t h e r e a r e n o r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t o a p p o i n t a n a t t o r n e y a n d n o j u s t i f i c a t i o n

f o r o r d e r i n g a n y t e s t i n g

. A “ f a v o r a b l e ” D N A t e s t r e s u l t m u s t b e t h e s o r t o f e v i d e n c e t h a t

w o u l d a f f i r m a t i v e l y c a s t d o u b t u p o n t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e i n m a t e ’ s c o n v i c t i o n ; o t h e r w i s e

, D N A

t e s t i n g w o u l d s i m p l y “ m u d d y t h e w a t e r s

. ” 2 2

3

. A p

p e l l a n t d o e s n o t h a v e r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t o f i l e a m o t i o n f

o r D N A t e s t i n g

.

testing motion are not present if the rec ord bef ore the trial court shows that DN A testing is

impossibl e or tha t no viable ar g ument for testing can be made.” ).

See Rivera v . State, 89 S.W .3d 55, 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (citing Kutzner, 75 2 2

S.W .3d at 439).Gutierre z P ag e 14

A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d e n y h i s r e q u e s t f o r a p p o i n t e d

c o u n s e l w a s o u t s i d e t h e z o n e o f r e a s o n a b l e d i s a g r e e m e n t b e c a u s e t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e m u r d e r e r

w a s a t i s s u e f

o r p u r p o s e s o f A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 1

. I n m a k i n g t h i s a r g u m e n t

, a p p e l l a n t a s s e r t s t h a t

t h e t r i a l j u d g e w a s n o t e n t i t l e d t o c o n s i d e r e i t h e r a p p e l l a n t ’ s t h i r d s t a t e m e n t t o

p o l i c e

– b e c a u s e i t w a s p u r p o r t e d l y t a k e n i n v i o l a t i o n o f h i s r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t

– o r h i s 2 3

a c c o m p l i c e s ’ s t a t e m e n t s

– b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e n e i t h e r a d m i s s i b l e n o r a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l a n d

a p p e l l a n t h a s n e v e r h a d a c h a n c e t o c o n f r o n t a n d c r o s s

- e x a m i n e t h o s e a c c o m p l i c e s

. 2 4

A p p e l l a n t f

u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t

, e v e n i f t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d

, t h e y a r e i r r e l e v a n t

t o w h e t h e r t h e m u r d e r e r ’ s i d e n t i t y i s a n i s s u e f o r p u r p o s e s o f D N A t e s t i n g

.

F i r s t

, b e c a u s e a p e r s o n ’ s e f f o r t t o s e c u r e t e s t i n g u n d e r C h a p t e r 6 4 d o e s n o t i n v o l v e

a n y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e c o u l d p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r t h e a c c o m p l i c e s ’

s t a t e m e n t s

. A l t h o u g h e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d a g a i n s t a d e f

e n d a n t a t a c r i m i n a l t r i a l a n d c h a l l e n g e d

o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o u n d s m u s t b e a d m i s s i b l e t o g i v e a d e q u a t e p r o t e c t i o n t o t h e v a l u e s t h a t

e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e s a r e d e s i g n e d t o s e r v e

, a C h a p t e r 6 4 p r o c e e d i n g i s n o t a “ c r i m i n a l t r i a l

. ” 2 5

Appellant filed a

pretria l motion t o suppress his statements, which the trial judg e 2 3

denied. This Court upheld the tria l judge ’s ruling admitting appe llant’s third statement on direc t

appea l and denied the same c laim in his st ate wr it.

Appellant ar g ues that, bec ause he had no opportunity to cross-e x amine his ac complices, 2 4

their testimonial statements should not be considere d by any court in dete rmining w hether the

murdere r’s identity

is at issue for purpose s of Article 64.01.

See, e .g., Lego v. Twomey , 404 U.S. 477, 488-89 (1972) ( exclusionary rules aim to 2 5

deter lawless conduc t by

police and pr osecution and of ten oper ate a t the expense of plac ing

probative e vidence befor e juries f or the purpose of ar

riving at truthful dec isions about guilt or

innocenc e); Thompson v. State , 123 S.W .3d 781, 784-85 (Te x . App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2003,

pet. re f’d) (unlike a c riminal trial, a Chapter 64 proce eding is an independe nt, collatera l inquiryGutierre z P ag e 15

R a t h e r

, i t i s a n i n d e p e n d e n t

, c o l l a t e r a l i n q u i r y i n t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e c o n v i c t i o n

, i n w h i c h

e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e s h a v e n o p l a c e

, a n d t h e r e a r e n o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

. A r t i c l e 2 6

6 4

. 0 3 d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a n y e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e t r i a l j u d g e d e c i d e s w h e t h e r a

c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n i s e n t i t l e d t o D N A t e s t i n g

. A n d

, i f a h e a r i n g i s h e l d

, t h e c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n 2 7

h a s n o r i g h t t o b e p r e s e n t

, n o r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t o r c r o s s

- e x a m i n e w i t n e s s e s

, a n d n o r i g h t t o

h a v e h e a r s a y e x c l u d e d o r a n a f f i d a v i t c o n s i d e r e d

. T h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s p l a c e d n o b a r r i e r s 2 8

t o t h e t y p e o f r e l e v a n t a n d r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e m a y c o n s i d e r w h e n

d e t e r m i n i n g i f i d e n t i t y w a s o r i s a n i s s u e i n t h e c a s e

. T h e i n f o r m a t i o n m u s t b e r e l i a b l e

, b u t

into the validity

of the c onviction).

Prible v. State , 245 S.W .3d 466, 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). See, e .g., Ex parte 2 6

Mines , 26 S.W .3d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (cr iminal defenda nt enjoy s a pre sumption of

innocenc e and a

constitutional right to be pr esent a t a pre trial or trial he aring ; applicant for

post-conviction writ of ha beas c orpus enjoy s neither) ; D I X & D A W S O N

, supra , note 9, § 45.181

(re cog nizi ng that this Court, i n Prible , made it clea r “tha t a convicte d person’ s eff ort to secur e

testing to show that a

nother pe rson was involved in the of fense involved no constitutional

considerations”).

Rivera v . State , 89 S.W .3d 55, 58-59 (Te x . Crim. App. 2002) (ar t. 64.03 does not 2 7

require a hea

ring of any

sort conce rning the convicting court’s de termination of whe ther a

convicted pe rson is entitled to DNA testing , but art. 64.04 re quires a he aring afte r a c onvicted

person ha s obtained DNA testing unde r ar t. 64.03). See id. at 61 (He rvey , J ., concur ring ) (noting

that Chapter 64 doe s not prohibit a convicting court fr om exercising its discre tion to conduct an

evidentiar y hear ing w ith live witnesses for the pur pose of r esolving issues under a rt. 64.03).

See Thompson , 123 S.W .3d at 784-85 (“ Unlike a c riminal trial, a cha pter 64 proc eeding 2 8

such as this one doe s not impl icate a n appellant' s confr ontation-clause rig hts beca use this ty

pe of

proce eding does not nec essar ily involve any

witnesses or a ccusa tions ag ainst the appe llant.

Rather, a s set forth in cha pter 64, the pr ocee ding involves a motion made by

the applica

nt

followed by

the State’s non-a ccusa tory response require d under the statute. This ty pe of

proce eding is analog ous to a habe as cor pus proce eding in that it is an indepe ndent, collater al

inquiry into the validity

of the c onviction. There fore , as in a post-c onviction writ of habe as

corpus pr ocee ding, a

n applicant f

or a post-c onviction DNA ana ly sis enjoy s neither a presumption

of innoce nce nor

a constitutional rig ht to be prese nt at a hea ring .”) ( citations omitt ed).Gutierre z P ag e 16

i t n e e d n o t b e a d m i s s i b l e o r p r e v i o u s l y a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l

. I n s h o r t

, i n a C h a p t e r 6 4 2 9

p r o c e e d i n g

, t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n d o e s n o t b a r a j u d g e f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g s t a t e m e n t s t h a t w e r e ( o r

s h o u l d h a v e b e e n ) i n a d m i s s i b l e a t t r i a l

. T h e w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y a p p e l l a n t a n d h i s

t w o a c c o m p l i c e s

, w h i c h w e r e a t t a c h e d t o t h e S t a t e ’ s b r i e f s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e

, a r e a s

m u c h a p a r t o f t h i s r e c o r d a s t h e d o c u m e n t s i n a p p e l l a n t ’ s a p p e n d i x

. 3 0

S e c o n d

, t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s a r e h i g h l y p r o b a t i v e o f w h e t h e r t h e m u r d e r e r ’ s i d e n t i t y i s

a n i s s u e f o r p u r p o s e s o f D N A t e s t i n g

. A p p e l l a n t p r o p e r l y n o t e s t h a t c o n f e s s i o n s a n d w i t n e s s

s t a t e m e n t s d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y p r e c l u d e a f i n d i n g o f r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s f

o r g r a n t i n g a D N A

m o t i o n

. A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 3 ( b ) p r o v i d e s t h a t “ A c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n w h o

. . . m a d e a c o n f e s s i o n o r

s i m i l a r a d m i s s i o n i n t h e c a s e m a y s u b m i t a m o t i o n u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r

, a n d t h e c o n v i c t i n g

c o u r t i s p r o h i b i t e d f

r o m f i n d i n g t h a t i d e n t i t y w a s n o t a n i s s u e i n t h e c a s e s o l e l y o n t h e b a s i s

o f [ t h a t ]

. . . c o n f

e s s i o n

, o r a d m i s s i o n [

. ] ” A n d w e h a v e h e l d t h a t

, a t l e a s t u n d e r s o m e 3 1

See Hall v. State , 297 S.W .3d 294, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“The court of a ppeals 2 9

err ed to hold that a Rule 702 Kelly g ateke eping hear ing is re quired to show the r eliability of

L I DAR technolog y

to measure speed a t a hea ring on a motion to suppress. Neve rtheless, the

court of a ppeals c orre ctly

held that the trial judg e abuse d his discretion when de ny ing H all’s

suppression motion because there was no e vidence that L I DAR technolog y , as used in this case

, supplied probable c ause f or the stop.”)

. See also id. at 300-01(Pric e, J., concurring ) (se tting out

the “blue c ube” the ory , in which an of fice r testified that a

person wa s speeding simply beca use a

“blue c ube” on his da shboard so indica ted).

See, e .g., Ex parte Campbe ll, 226 S.W .3d 418, 423-24 (Te x . Crim. App. 2007) (habe as 3 0

court c ould properly

consider e x hibits attached to State’s Motion to Dismiss ; “His Chapter 64

reque st, the trial court’s r etesting order , the DPS results, and the trial cour t’s finding s are all

attache d as exhibit s to the State’s motion and are as much a part of this habe as re cord a s are

applicant’ s attachme nts.”).

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 64.03(b)

. 3 1Gutierre z P ag e 17

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, a w i t n e s s ’ s s t a t e m e n t m a y b e “ i r r e l e v a n t ” t o w h e t h e r a m o t i o n f o r D N A

t e s t i n g m a k e s i d e n t i t y a n i s s u e

. B u t a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n f e s s i o n i s n o t t h e s o l e b a s i s f o r f i n d i n g 3 2

t h a t i d e n t i t y w a s n o t a n i s s u e

. T h e S t a t e a l s o p o i n t s t o J u l i o L o p e z ’ s t e s t i m o n y t h a t a p p e l l a n t

w a s o u t s i d e o f t h e v i c t i m ’ s h o m e o n t h e e v e n i n g o f t h e m u r d e r a n d t h a t h e r a n a r o u n d t o t h e

b a c k o f t h e v i c t i m ’ s h o m e w h i l e a n o t h e r p e r s o n w e n t t o t h e f r o n t d o o r

. M r

. L o p e z ’ s

t e s t i m o n y i n d e p e n d e n t l y c o r r o b o r a t e s a p p e l l a n t ’ s o w n s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g h i s a c t i o n s

.

F u r t h e r m o r e

, t h i s i s n o t a c a s e i n w h i c h t e s t i n g o f b i o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e l e f t b y a l o n e

a s s a i l a n t i s s o u g h t

. T h i s c a s e w a s t r i e d u n d e r t h e l a w o f p a r t i e s

, a n d t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e 3 3

p a r t i e s

– a p p e l l a n t

, R e n e G a r c i a

, a n d P e d r o G r a c i a

– w a s n o t a n i s s u e a t t r i a l

, a n d i t i s n o t a n

i s s u e n o w

. T h i s c o m b i n a t i o n

, o f ( 1 ) a p p e l l a n t ’ s t h i r d s t a t e m e n t

, p l a c i n g h i m i n s i d e M r s

.

H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e w i t h a s c r e w d r i v e r i n h i s h a n d

, ( 2 ) R e n e G a r c i a ’ s s t a t e m e n t t h a t p l a c e s h i m

i n s i d e M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e a n d s t a b b i n g h e r

, a n d ( 3 ) P e d r o G r a c i a ’ s s t a t e m e n t t h a t p l a c e s

h i m i n s i d e M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e m u r d e r

, i s h i g h l y p r o b a t i v e o f ` w h e t h e r

i d e n t i t y w a s o r i s a n i s s u e

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e i s t h e s o l e j u d g e o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e s e t h r e e

c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t s

, a l l o f w h i c h c l e a r l y a n d u n e q u i v o c a l l y p l a c e a p p e l l a n t i n s i d e M r s

.

Blackloc k v. State , 235 S.W .3d 231, 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“Tha t the victim 3 2

testified that she kne w appe llant and identified him as her attacke r is irrele vant to whether

appellant' s motion for DNA testing makes his identity an issue”)

.

Esparza v. State , 282 S.W .3d 913, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Smith v. State , 165 3 3

S.W .3d 361, 364-65 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005).Gutierre z P ag e 18

H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e a t t h e t i m e o f h e r m u r d e r

. T h e r e f o r e

, w e a d o p t t h i s f

a c t u a l f i n d i n g

. 3 4

T o g e t h e r w i t h a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l

, t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p o r t s t h e 3 5

t r i a l j u d g e ’ s u l t i m a t e l e g a l r u l i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e n o “ r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s ” f o r a m o t i o n t o b e

f i l e d u n d e r C h a p t e r 6 4

. 3 6

B

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s s e c o n d i s s u e i s w i t h o u t m e r i t b e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t w a s “ a t f a u l t ” i n n o t

s e e k i n g D N A t e s t i n g a t t r i a l

.

I n h i s o r d e r d e n y i n g D N A t e s t i n g

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e f o u n d t h a t a p p e l l a n t f

a i l e d t o c o m p l y

w i t h A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) b e c a u s e i t w a s h i s f a u l t t h a t t h e b i o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l w a s n o t

p r e v i o u s l y t e s t e d d u r i n g h i s t r i a l

. 3 7

See R ivera v . State , 89 S.W .3d 55, 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (in revie wing trial 3 4

judge ’s ruling on reque st for DNA testing, w e g ive almost complete de fer ence to the trial judg e’s

deter mination of historical fac ts and applica tion-of-law -to-fa ct issues that turn on cr edibility and

demea nor).

The trial judg e re asonably could have conclude d that appellant, the se lf-admitted 3 5

mastermind of the r obbery and the only

one of the three robber s who knew w here Mrs. Har rison

kept her cash, w as most unlikely

to tell his t wo cohor

ts the location of that money and then se nd

them off into her

house unsuper

vised to find the ca che a

nd bring it back as he waited pa tiently in

the par k. Fur thermore , the trial judg e could ha ve re asonably conclude d that only

appellant ha d

the motive to kill t he 83-y ear -old woman during the robbe ry beca use he w as the only

one of the

three whom she would have immediately rec og nized.

See R ivera , 89 S.W .3d at 59 (“ [T] he ultimate question of whe ther a rea sonable 3 6

probability

exis ts that ex culpatory

DNA tests would prove innocenc e is an a pplication-of- law-tofac t question that does not turn on cre dibilit y and deme anor a

nd is theref

ore r eviewe d de novo .”).

Specifica lly , the cour

t noted that: 3 7

Def endant did have the opportunity to inspect all phy sical evide nce in the State’ s

possession before trial beg an including those specif ic items listed in his motion.

There has bee n no complaint raised r eg arding ineffe ctive assistanc e of tria l

counsel for

any alleg ed fa ilure to have an indepe ndent expert appointed, to have

testing pe rfor

med on any

evidenc e, or to re quest a c ontinuance pr ior to trial so

these matter s could be done . Trial counse l advised this Court, prior to trial, that

afte r re viewing the evidenc e it would make a ny such re quests if it deemedGutierre z P ag e 19

1

. D e f e n d a n t s m u s t

, i n t h e u s u a l c a s e

, a v a i l t h e m s e l v e s o f D N A t e c h n o l o g

y a v a i l a b l e a t

t h e t i m e o

f t r i a l

.

I f D N A t e s t i n g w a s n o t d o n e a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l

, t h e c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n m u s t s h o w t h a t

( a ) D N A t e s t i n g w a s n o t a v a i l a b l e ; ( b ) D N A t e s t i n g w a s a v a i l a b l e “ b u t n o t t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y

c a p a b l e o f p r o v i d i n g p r o b a t i v e r e s u l t s ” ; o r ( c ) n o D N A t e s t i n g o c c u r r e d “ t h r o u g h n o f a u l t o f

t h e c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n

, f

o r r e a s o n s t h a t a r e o f s u c h a n a t u r e t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e r e q u i r e

D N A t e s t i n g

. ” B e c a u s e t h e b i o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l s a c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n s e e k s t o s u b j e c t t o 3 8

p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n t e s t i n g u n d e r C h a p t e r 6 4 a r e

, b y d e f i n i t i o n

, i n t h e S t a t e ’ s p o s s e s s i o n a t t h e

t i m e o f t r i a l

, c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n s c a n n o t s i m p l y r e l y o n t h e S t a t e ’ s p o s s e s s i o n a t t h e t i m e o f

t r i a l t o i n v o k e t h e n o

- f

a u l t p r o v i s i o n o f S u b s e c t i o n ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B )

. R a t h e r

, t h e p e r s o n m u s t m a k e 3 9

a m o r e p a r t i c u l a r i z e d s h o w i n g o f t h e a b s e n c e o f f a u l t u n d e r A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) b e c a u s e

C h a p t e r 6 4 r e q u i r e s “ d e f e n d a n t s t o a v a i l t h e m s e l v e s o f w h a t e v e r D N A t e c h n o l o g y m a y b e

a v a i l a b l e a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l

. ” I f t r i a l c o u n s e l d e c l i n e s t o s e e k t e s t i n g a s a m a t t e r o f 4 0

r e a s o n a b l e t r i a l s t r a t e g y

, t h e n p o s t

- t r i a l t e s t i n g i s n o t u s u a l l y r e q u i r e d i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f

j u s t i c e

. “ T o h o l d o t h e r w i s e w o u l d a l l o w d e f e n d a n t s t o ‘ l i e b e h i n d t h e l o g ’ b y f a i l i n g t o s e e k

nece ssary . No such re quests wer e made and no objec tions were lodg ed. Thus,

fault is attributable to the “ convicted pe rson” a s to why the biologic al mater ial

was not pre viously

subjected to DN A testing

.

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 64.01(b)

. 3 8

Routier v. State , 273 S.W .3d 241, 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 3 9

Id. at 248. As long as it would have be en appa rent to the movant a

t the time of trial 4 0

that the evidenc e conta ining biolog ical mater ial would “have discrete and indepe ndent proba tive

value, the ove rall import of the statute mandates that she see k such testing at that time, or for eg o

testing la ter.” Id.Gutierre z P ag e 20

t e s t i n g b e c a u s e o f a r e a s o n a b l e f e a r t h a t t h e r e s u l t s w o u l d b e i n c r i m i n a t i n g a t t r i a l b u t t h e n

s e e k i n g t e s t i n g a f

t e r c o n v i c t i o n w h e n t h e r e i s n o l o n g e r a n y t h i n g t o l o s e

. ” 4 1

2

. A p

p e l l a n t m a d e a c o n s i d e r e d d e c i s i o n t o f o r g o D N A t e s t i n g a t t r i a l

.

A p p e l l a n t p o i n t s o u t t h a t

, a l t h o u g h t h e p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e w a s m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e

d e f e n s e t e a m f

o r i n s p e c t i o n

, i t w a s n o t m a d e a v a i l a b l e u n t i l t h e F r i d a y b e f o r e t h e M o n d a y

t r i a l

. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h i s w a s t o o l a t e b e c a u s e “ a m o t i o n f o r a r e l a t i v e l y l e n g t h y

c o n t i n u a n c e w o u l d h a v e b e e n p o i n t l e s s

. ” T h a t i s

, h e a r g u e s

, t h e m o t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n 4 2

d e n i e d

, a n d t h a t d e n i a l w o u l d h a v e b e e n a f f i r m e d o n a p p e a l

. B u t t h i s i s s h e e r s p e c u l a t i o n

, 4 3

u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e c o r d

. T h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t a p p e l l a n t f

i l e d a p r e

- t r i a l m o t i o n t o

i n s p e c t p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e o n F e b r u a r y 5

, 1 9 9 9

, a n d t h e j u d g e g r a n t e d i t o n M a r c h 1 8

, 1 9 9 9

. 4 4

Skinner v . State , 293 S.W .3d 196, 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Converse ly , “evide nce 4 1

that counsel provide d constitutionally ineffe ctive assistanc e in fa iling to see k DNA testing of

cer tain items could be suffic ient to show that the failure to test was not appellant’ s fault ‘for

rea sons that are of a na ture such tha t the interests of justice r equire DNA testing .’ The r easoning

behind per

mitti ng challeng es to the ef fec tiveness of a

trial attorney ' s repr esenta tion is t hat ‘[a]n

acc used is entitled to be assisted by an attorne y

. . . who play s the role ne cessa ry to ensure tha t

the trial is fair.’ ”).

Appellant’s B rief at 27. 4 2

Id. 4 3

The following colloquy occur red dur ing the hear ing. 4 4

State: Okay . Motion to i nspect, e x amine and te st phy sical evide nce, Judge , that’s their–

I ' m not–I don' t know if they want to do independe nt testing. Tha t's not be en

broug ht to my

attention. I ’m not sure wha t the status of that is today

. Once ag ain, they

can look a

t it. I f they

want to do independe nt testing, I

need to know be cause the lab in Austin–I mean, in McA llen will have to

assist us in getting the evidenc e re ady to ship somewhere

.

Def ense: J udg e, with this moti on, we’ re a sking f or any ty pe of phy sical evide nce. F or

example, there w as blood samples that we re ta ken, fing erpr ints that mi g ht haveGutierre z P ag e 21

A f t e r t h a t i n s p e c t i o n

, t h e d e f e n s e n e v e r m a d e a n y m o t i o n f o r i n d e p e n d e n t t e s t i n g o f t h e

e v i d e n c e

, f

o r a n a p p o i n t m e n t o f a n i n d e p e n d e n t e x p e r t

, o r f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e

. A n d n o c l a i m

o r s h o w i n g o f i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e h a s b e e n m a d e o r i s a p p a r e n t h e r e

.

A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s n o e x p l i c i t e x p l a n a t i o n f r o m c o u n s e l w h y h e d i d n o t a s k f o r t e s t i n g

,

c o u n s e l ’ s s t r a t e g y b e c a m e c l e a r a t t r i a l

. A p p e l l a n t u s e d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e B r o w n s v i l l e P o l i c e

D e p a r t m e n t f

a i l e d t o t e s t t h e e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n i n g b i o l o g i c a l D N A e v i d e n c e t o a r g u e t h e l a c k

o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t d u r i n g t h e t r i a l

. A p p e l l a n t

c r o s s

- e x a m i n e d t h e c r i m e

- s c e n e i n v e s t i g a t o r J u a n H e r n a n d e z a b o u t t h e f i n g e r n a i l s c r a p i n g s

a n d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t t e s t e d

. C o u n s e l a s k e d s i m i l a r q u e s t i o n s a b o u t o t h e r a p p a r e n t

b l o o d s a m p l e s t h a t w e r e c o l l e c t e d

– b l o o d o n a r a i n c o a t

, i n b a t h r o o m s

, o n t h e s c r e e n d o o r t o

t h e g a r a g e

, a n d o n t h e c o u c h

. D u r i n g h i s c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t

, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d

t h a t t h e B r o w n s v i l l e P o l i c e f e l l d o w n o n t h e j o b

. 4 5

been ta ken, fing erpr int -- I ’m sorry , fing erna il scraping s that were taken f rom the

victim.

We’re a sking tha t, first of all, we be allowed to inspec t them. I

know that the De partment of Public Safe ty still has them in their

possession. And we’ re simply asking for us to be a llowed to inspect them.

I f at that time we deem it nec essar y to have them e x amined by experts,

then we w ould urg e -- we would r equire that at that time or ask f or that at

that time.

. . . Court: Okay , For the re cord, I ’ll g o ahea d and g rant the motion for the inspection and

examination of the phy sical evide nce.

Def ense c losing a

rg uments included the following statements: 4 5

* “Escola stica Ha

rrison had some - - some scr aping s on her f inge rtips. That -- those

scra pings w ould tell y ou who the killer is. Those sc raping s, if they wer e tested, the y

would tell y ou who is the individual that kill ed Escola stica Ha rrison.”Gutierre z P ag e 22

B e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d a f

f i r m a t i v e l y s h o w s t h a t D N A t e s t i n g w a s a v a i l a b l e t o a p p e l l a n t

b e f o r e t r i a l o n t h e v e r y i t e m s t h a t h e r e q u e s t s b e t e s t e d n o w

, a n d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a p p a r e n t l y

d i d n o t h a v e t e s t i n g p e r f o r m e d o n t h o s e s a m e i t e m s b e c a u s e o f s o u n d t r i a l s t r a t e g y

, t h e t r i a l 4 6

j u d g e d i d n o t e r r i n f

i n d i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o m e e t t h e u n a v a i l a b i l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t

o f A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B )

. W e a d o p t h i s f i n d i n g

.

C

. A p p e l l a n t h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t “ t h e s i n g l e l o o s e h a i r ” t h a t h e w o u l d l i k e t o h a v e

t e s t e d c u r r e n t l y e x i s t s o r c o u l d b e d e l i v e r e d t o t h e c o n v i c t i n g c o u r t

.

* “B esides the sc raping s, she also had some ha ir. She had a hair on he r fing erna ils also. Did

they test this for y ou? No. That' s the job of the D.A.’ s Offic e. Tha t's the job of the

Br ownsville Poli ce D epar tment. They

need to g o ahea d and show y ou as much e vidence

as they have, a s much evidenc e as the y can.”

* “B ut what did the B rownsville Police Depa rtment do? They

don’t do this. W hy ? Be cause

in this t y pe of c ase, pr obably

in any other ty pe of c ase, w hat their initial thing to do is to

try to ge t a voluntary

statement.”

* “I f they

do not ge t a statement fr om any of the individuals, they

need to do some w ork.

They need to g o ahea d and send the scra pings to be tested. They

need to do f

urther

investiga tion.”

* “I n this kind of case, the y would probably

-- what they ’re doing is try ing to g o ahea d and

g et the ea sy

way out. The ea sy

way out is to t ry

to ge t a statement fr om the individuals.”

* “He also stated that ther e wa s a foot in the blood. Did they chec k into that? No. Did they

bring y ou any

information as to that? No. They just tell y ou there was something on there

, but why chec k into it? They ’re g oing to g et voluntary statements. Why

chec k into it

further ? ”

* “Tha t’s–as to the B rownsville Police Depa rtment, that’s wha t mainly ever y body does.

They g ive voluntary

statements. Why

look for the sc raping s? Why look for any

thing e lse?

Why try to go a head a nd investiga te furthe r? For what? We know that ever y body ’s g oing

to give a voluntary

statement.”

* “He also testified that there was blood in the toilet, on Ruben’s toilet. He also testified

that there was blood also on the door knob and on the f

loor of the toilet. That’s w hat the

office rs testified to. Did they chec k into that? No.”

* “Nobody

went to g et the fing erpr ints. Nobody went over

to try to go a head a nd dust for

fing erpr ints. Nobody

did any thing but g et voluntary

statements.”

Skinner v . State , 293 S.W .3d 196, 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (if trial counse l declined 4 6

to seek testing beca

use of a rea sonable fe ar tha t the results would be incr iminating at tria l,

post-trial testing is not usually require d by

the intere sts of justice).Gutierre z P ag e 23

I n h i s t h i r d i s s u e

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s f i n d i n g t h a t “ t h e s i n g l e l o o s e

h a i r ” f o u n d i n M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h a n d d u r i n g t h e a u t o p s y “ d o e s n o t e x i s t b e c a u s e i t w a s n e v e r

r e c o v e r e d a s e v i d e n c e ” i s n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e c o r d

. I n i t s r e s p o n s e t o a p p e l l a n t ’ s 4 7

m o t i o n

, t h e S t a t e e x p l a i n e d t h a t a l l o f t h e i t e m s f o r w h i c h a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d t e s t i n g

, e x c e p t

f o r t h e s i n g l e l o o s e h a i r

, w e r e i n t h e c u s t o d y o f e i t h e r t h e B r o w n s v i l l e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t o r

t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c S a f e t y

- M c A l l e n C r i m e L a b

. T h e S t a t e i n f o r m e d t h e t r i a l

j u d g e t h a t

, a f

t e r m a k i n g i n q u i r y a n d f u r t h e r r e v i e w

, i t d i d n o t f i n d t h a t “ t h e s i n g l e l o o s e h a i r ”

w a s e v e r c o l l e c t e d a s e v i d e n c e

. T h a t h a i r w a s i d e n t i f i e d d u r i n g t h e a u t o p s y b y D r

. D a h m

w h o s t a t e d t h a t h e b e l i e v e d h e g a v e i t t o t h e B r o w n s v i l l e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t

. B u t t h e r e w a s

n o o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t i t w a s c o l l e c t e d o r g i v e n t o t h e p o l i c e

. R a t h e r

, “ T h e

s i n g l e l o o s e h a i r i s n o t i d e n t i f i e d b y t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c S a f e t y i n i t s M a r c h 1 7

,

1 9 9 9 r e p o r t a s b e i n g e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d t o i t b y t h e B r o w n s v i l l e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t

. ”

1

. T h e S t a t e ’ s d u t

y t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e

.

A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 2 r e q u i r e s t h e a t t o r n e y r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e S t a t e t o t a k e o n e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g

a c t i o n s i n r e s p o n s e t o a m o t i o n f o r D N A t e s t i n g : 1 ) d e l i v e r t h e e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o u r t

, a l o n g

w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e ; o r 2 ) e x p l a i n i n w r i t i n g t o t h e c o u r t w h y

The trial judg e spec ifically found the following : 4 7

I n revie wing State’s re sponse pursuant to Te x . Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.02, the

Court finds that DNA evide nce, spe cifica lly the sing le loose hair de scribed in

Def endant’ s motion, does not ex ist because it was neve r re cover ed as e vidence in

the investig ation of the c ase a nd there is no recor d of a c hain of c ustody for the

single loose hair. The Court finds that the non-existence of this piece of evide nce

was not ca

used by any bad fa ith of the State.Gutierre z P ag e 24

t h e S t a t e c a n n o t d e l i v e r t h e e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o u r t

. I f t h e t r i a l j u d g e “ f i n d s t h a t t h e S t a t e h a s 4 8

n o t e x e r c i s e d d u e d i l i g e n c e i n a t t e m p t i n g t o l o c a t e t h e e v i d e n c e

, t h e c o u r t c e r t a i n l y h a s

i m p l i e d a u t h o r i t y t o o r d e r t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s a f e k e e p i n g a n d c u s t o d y o f t h e e v i d e n c e

t o c o n d u c t a f

u r t h e r s e a r c h

. ” B u t

, i f t h e t r i a l j u d g e f i n d s

, a s a f

a c t u a l m a t t e r

, t h a t t h e 4 9

e v i d e n c e n o l o n g e r e x i s t s a n d i t s d i s a p p e a r a n c e i s n o t c a u s e d b y t h e b a d f a i t h o f t h e S t a t e

,

t h e r e q u e s t e d i t e m s i m p l y i s n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r D N A t e s t i n g

.

2

. T h e t r i a l j u d

g e r e a s o n a b l

y f o u n d t h a t “ t h e s i n g l e l o o s e h a i r ” w a s n e v e r r e c o v e r e d a s

e v i d e n c e

.

A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e ’ s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e s i n g l e l o o s e h a i r “ w a s n e v e r

r e c o v e r e d ” i s c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e a u t o p s y r e p o r t a n d D r

. D a h m ’ s t e s t i m o n y

. T h u s

, h e a r g u e s

t h a t t h e j u d g e ’ s f

a c t f i n d i n g i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o d e f e r e n c e

, e s p e c i a l l y b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l j u d g e

f a i l e d t o c o n d u c t f

u r t h e r i n q u i r y g i v e n s u c h d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n b y t h e m e d i c a l e x a m i n e r

.

T h e S t a t e r e s p o n d s t h a t t h e c o n v i c t i n g c o u r t w a s e n t i t l e d t o r e l y o n i t s e x p l a n a t i o n f o r

w h y i t c o u l d n o t d e l i v e r t h e s i n g l e l o o s e h a i r t o t h e c o u r t

. W e a g r e e

. D r

. D a h m ’ s t e s t i m o n y

w a s t h a t h e b e l i e v e d t h a t h e h a d s u b m i t t e d t h e h a i r

.

Q

. W h e n y o u w e r e c o n d u c t i n g y o u r a u t o p s y

, a m I c o r r e c t i n s t a t i n g t h a t

y o u f o u n d a p i e c e o f h a i r o r l o o s e

– a s i n g l e l o o s e p i e c e o f h a i r a r o u n d

E s c o l a s t i c a H a r r i s o n ’ s t h i r d d i g i t u p p e r l e f t h a n d ?

A

. I b e l i e v e s o

, y e s

, s i r

. Q

. A n d w h a t i s i t t h a t y o u d i d w i t h t h a t l o o s e p i e c e o f h a i r ?

A

. I b e l i e v e i t w a s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e p o l i c e

.

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 64.02. 4 8

In re State , 116 S.W .3d 376, 384-85 (Te x . App.—El Paso 2003, no pet.) (or ig. 4 9

proce eding ).Gutierre z P ag e 25

B u t t h e p o l i c e d o n o t h a v e i t

. A n d t h e r e i s n o r e c o r d t h a t t h e y e v e r h a d i t

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e

a c t e d w e l l w i t h i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n c r e d i t i n g t h e S t a t e ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t t h e h a i r h a d n o t

b e e n c o l l e c t e d

, d e s p i t e D r

. D a h m ’ s b e l i e f t h a t h e h a d s u b m i t t e d i t t o t h e p o l i c e

. W e a d o p t

t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r u l i n g t h a t t h e h a i r i s n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r D N A t e s t i n g

.

D

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e a c t e d w i t h i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n f i n d i n g t h a t i d e n t i t y w a s n o t a n d

i s n o t a n i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e

.

A p p e l l a n t a s s e r t s t h a t i d e n t i t y w a s a n i s s u e a t t r i a l b e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d t h a t

,

a l t h o u g h h e p l a n n e d t h e r o b b e r y

, “ h e w a s n o t p r e s e n t a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e o f f e n s e

, d i d n o t p l a n

t h e v i c t i m ’ s m u r d e r

, d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e v i c t i m ’ s m u r d e r

, d i d n o t k n o w t h a t h i s c o

d e f e n d a n t ’ s i n t e n d e d t o c o m m i t m u r d e r

, a n d c o u l d n o t h a v e r e a s o n a b l y a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t h i s

c o

- d e f e n d a n t s i n t e n d e d t o c o m m i t m u r d e r

. ” I n s u p p o r t o f t h i s a s s e r t i o n

, a p p e l l a n t a g a i n 5 0

a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e c o u l d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e t h r e e s t a t e m e n t s b y a l l t h r e e p a r t i c i p a n t s t h a t

a p p e l l a n t w a s i n s i d e M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e a t t h e t i m e s h e w a s m u r d e r e d

. W e r e s o l v e d t h i s

a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t i n h i s f i r s t i s s u e

. T h e t h r e e s t a t e m e n t s c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s

C h a p t e r 6 4 p r o c e e d i n g

, a n d t h e y a r e h i g h l y p r o b a t i v e

. T h e c o n s i d e r a b l e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l 5 1

Appellant conte nds that, under his theory , “the two men pr esent a t the scene of the 5 0

offe nse we re Rene Gar cia a nd Pedro Gra cia. DN A testing that identified Pedro Gr acia (or indee d

any other male other than G utierre z or Rene Gar cia) as the donor of the blood and/or tissue

samples taken f

rom the victim and/or the sc ene of the offe nse would establish that Gutierr ez was

not, in fact, the se cond man.” Appellant’s Motion for F orensic D NA Te sting a t 7.

See, e .g., In re M

cBride , 82 S.W .3d 395, 397 (Tex. App.–Austin 2002, no pet.) 5 1

(identity not at issue wher e prior D NA test inculpate d defe ndant, eve n though tha t test was not

admitted into evidence ).Gutierre z P ag e 26

e v i d e n c e a n d i n f

e r e n c e s f r o m t h a t e v i d e n c e b o l s t e r t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s

. T h e

c o n v i c t i n g c o u r t h a d s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n t o s u p p o r t h i s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e i d e n t i t y w a s a n d

i s n o t a n i s s u e a n d t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e m u r d e r o f M r s

. H a r r i s o n

.

E

. A p p e l l a n t h a s f

a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h

, b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f e v i d e n c e t h a t h e w o u l d

n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r i f e x c u l p a t o r y r e s u l t s h a d b e e n

o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h D N A t e s t i n g

.

A p p e l l a n t a s s e r t s t h a t o n l y t w o i n d i v i d u a l s e n t e r e d M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e

, a n d t h a t

f a v o r a b l e D N A t e s t r e s u l t s w o u l d p r o v e t h a t h e w a s n o t o n e o f t h e m

, w h i c h w o u l d

, i n t u r n

,

e s t a b l i s h a 5 1 % c h a n c e t h a t h e e i t h e r w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r o r

w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n “ d e a t h

- e l i g i b l e

. ” T h e S t a t e r e s p o n d s t h a t a p p e l l a n t c a n n o t s h o w t h a t

h e w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r i f e x c u l p a t o r y r e s u l t s a r e o b t a i n e d

b e c a u s e s u c h r e s u l t s d o n o t “ s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e p o n d e r a t e a g a i n s t t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e

p l a c i n g t h e D e f

e n d a n t a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e m u r d e r

. ”

1

. T h e c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n m u s t e s t a b l i s h

, b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o

f t h e e v i d e n c e

, t h a t h e

w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d i f e x c u l p a t o r y D N A r e s u l t s a r e o b t a i n e d

.

U n d e r A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 3

, a c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o D N A t e s t i n g u n l e s s h e f i r s t

s h o w s t h a t t h e r e i s “ g r e a t e r t h a n a 5 0 % c h a n c e t h a t h e w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d i f

D N A t e s t i n g p r o v i d e d e x c u l p a t o r y r e s u l t s [

. ] ” T h e b u r d e n u n d e r A r t i c l e 6 4

. 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) i s 5 2

m e t i f t h e r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t e x c u l p a t o r y D N A t e s t r e s u l t s

, e x c l u d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t a s t h e

d o n o r o f t h e m a t e r i a l

, w o u l d e s t a b l i s h

, b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e

, t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t

Prible , 245 S.W .3d at 467-68; see also W ilson v. State , 185 S.W .3d 481, 484 (Tex. 5 2

Crim. App. 2006).Gutierre z P ag e 27

w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d

. S u c h w a s t h e c a s e i n B l a c k l o c k v

. S t a t e

, w h e r e w e h e l d t h a t 5 3

t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s m o t i o n f

o r D N A t e s t i n g f

a i r l y a l l e g e d

, a n d s h o w e d b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

t h e e v i d e n c e

, “ t h a t t h e v i c t i m ’ s l o n e a t t a c k e r i s t h e d o n o r o f t h e m a t e r i a l f o r w h i c h a p p e l l a n t

s e e k s D N A t e s t i n g

. ” I n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a c c o m p l i c e s

, t h e b u r d e n i s m o r e d i f f i c u l t b e c a u s e 5 4

t h e r e i s n o t a l o n e o f

f e n d e r w h o s e D N A m u s t h a v e b e e n l e f t a t t h e s c e n e

. A n d D N A t e s t i n g

5 5

w o u l d f r e q u e n t l y c o n f

i r m t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l b e l o n g s

, a s o n e w o u l d e x p e c t

, t o t h e v i c t i m o f t h e

c r i m e

. T h e b o t t o m l i n e i n p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n D N A t e s t i n g i s t h i s : W i l l t h i s t e s t i n g

, i f i t s h o w s

t h a t t h e b i o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l d o e s n o t b e l o n g t o t h e d e f e n d a n t

, e s t a b l i s h

, b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e

o f t h e e v i d e n c e

, t h a t h e d i d n o t c o m m i t t h e c r i m e a s e i t h e r a p r i n c i p a l o r a p a r t y ? 5 6

2

. A p p e l l a n t h a s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d

, b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o

f t h e e v i d e n c e

, t h a t h e w o u l d n o t

h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d i

f e x c u l p a t o r y r e s u l t s h a d b e e n o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h D N A t e s t i n g

.

235 S.W .3d 231(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 5 3

Id. at 232-33. See also Esparza v. State , 282 S.W .3d 913, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) 5 4

(“In sexual assault cases like this, any overw helming e y e-w itness identification and strong

circ umstantial evidence . . . supporting g uilt is inconseque ntial when asse ssing whe ther a

convicted pe rson has suff iciently alleg ed that exculpatory

DNA e vidence would prove his

innocenc e under

Article 64.03( a)( 2)(A) .”).

I n W hitaker v. State , 160 S.W .3d 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), we he ld that testing blood 5 5

found on the g un used as the mur der w eapon a nd finding that it did not belong to the def endant

in a ca se involving thre e conspirators would not be exculpatory since the blood c ould have

belong ed to the victim or one of the other c o-conspira tors, or it could have been le ft on the rifle

prior to the murde r. Id. at 9.

See, e .g.

, Prible v. State, 245 S.W .3d 466, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“without more, 5 6

the pre sence of anothe r per son’s DNA a t the crime sc ene w ould not constitut e af firmative

evidenc e of the appellant' s innocenc e” r equiring relief under Chapte r 64); Bell v. State, 90

S.W .3d 301, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding tha t evidence of anothe r per son’s DNA, if

found on hair, c iga

rette butt, and blood-sta ined bath mat collec ted from c rime sce ne, does not

constitute aff

irmative exculpatory

evidenc e).Gutierre z P ag e 28

T h e a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a n t s t e s t e d a n d w h a t i t c o u l d s h o w i s a s

f o l l o w s :

( 1 ) A b l o o d s a m p l e f r o m M r s

. H a r r i s o n

.

T h e D N A f

r o m M r s

. H a r r i s o n w i l l u n d o u b t e d l y b e h e r o w n

, n o t a p p e l l a n t ’ s

.

T h e r e i s n o e v i d e n t i a r y v a l u e i n t e s t i n g t h i s

.

( 2 ) A s h i r t b e l o n g i n g t o A v e l C u e l l a r c o n t a i n i n g a p p a r e n t b l o o d s t a i n s

.

T h e r e i s n o r e a s o n t o t h i n k t h a t D N A f r o m t h i s s h i r t w o u l d b e l o n g t o a p p e l l a n t

o r t o t h e m u r d e r e r s

. I t s h o u l d b e l o n g t o M r s

. H a r r i s o n f r o m w h e n M r

. C u e l l a r

d i s c o v e r e d h e r b o d y

, s t e p p e d i n t h e p o o l o f b l o o d a r o u n d h e r

, a n d p i c k e d h e r

u p

, g e t t i n g b l o o d o n h i s s h i r t

.

( 3 ) B l o o d s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d f r o m A v e l C u e l l a r ’ s b a t h r o o m a n d f r o m t h e s o f

a i n

t h e f r o n t r o o m

.

A g a i n

, t h e r e i s n o r e a s o n t o t h i n k t h a t D N A f r o m t h e s e b l o o d s a m p l e s w o u l d

b e l o n g t o a p p e l l a n t o r t o t h e m u r d e r e r s

.

( 4 ) F i n g e r n a i l s c r a p i n g s t a k e n f r o m M r s

. H a r r i s o n

.

T h i s i s t h e o n l y m a t e r i a l t h a t m i g h t c o n c e i v a b l y c o n t a i n D N A f r o m t h e

m u r d e r e r s

.

B u t a t e s t s h o w i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t ’ s D N A w a s n o t i n t h o s e s c r a p i n g s w o u l d n o t

e s t a b l i s h h i s i n n o c e n c e

. F i r s t

, t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e 8 5

- y e a r

- o l d v i c t i m w a s

a b l e t o h i t o r s c r a t c h h e r m u r d e r e r s w i t h h e r f i n g e r n a i l s a s t h e y a t t a c k e d h e r a n d s t a b b e d h e r

t h i r t e e n t i m e s i n t h e f

a c e a n d n e c k

. S e c o n d

, e v e n i f s o m e D N A w e r e f o u n d i n M r s

.

H a r r i s o n ’ s f

i n g e r n a i l s c r a p i n g s

, t h e r e i s n o w a y o f k n o w i n g w h e t h e r i t c a m e f r o m o n e o f h e r

m u r d e r e r s

. T h i r d

, a n y D N A f r o m h e r m u r d e r e r s m i g h t j u s t a s l i k e l y h a v e c o m e f r o m

a p p e l l a n t ’ s a c c o m p l i c e

, R e n e G a r c i a

, a n d t h a t w o u l d n o t e x c u l p a t e a p p e l l a n t

. T h e o n l y

c o n c e i v a b l e “ e x c u l p a t o r y ” r e s u l t w o u l d b e D N A f r o m t h e t h i r d a c c o m p l i c e

, P e d r o G r a c i a

,

i n t h e f i n g e r n a i l s c r a p i n g s

. B u t i s t h i s p l a u s i b l e ? A l l t h r e e r o b b e r s a g r e e d t h a t P e d r o G r a c i aGutierre z P ag e 29

w a s t h e d r i v e r a n d d i d n o t g o i n s i d e M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e

. A p p e l l a n t

, n o t G r a c i a

, w a s s e e n

r u n n i n g a r o u n d t h e b a c k o f M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s h o m e t h e e v e n i n g o f t h e m u r d e r

. A n d i t d e f i e s

c o m m o n s e n s e t o t h i n k t h a t a p p e l l a n t

, w h o f r e e l y a d m i t t e d t h a t “ I p l a n n e d t h e w h o l e r i p o f f

, ”

t o l d h i s c o h o r t s w h e r e M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s s e c r e t s t a s h o f c a s h w a s h i d d e n a n d t h e n s e n t t h e m

,

w i t h o u t s u p e r v i s i o n

, o f f t o r o b h e r w h i l e h e w a i t e d p a t i e n t l y f o r t h e i r r e t u r n a t a p a r k f a r

a w a y

. T h a t s c e n a r i o i s n o t b e l i e v a b l e

. A n d t h e t r i a l j u d g e w a s n o t r e q u i r e d t o b e l i e v e i t

. 5 7

B u t e v e n i f o n e a c c e p t e d s u c h a n i m p l a u s i b l e s c e n a r i o

, e x c u l p a t o r y n a i l s c r a p i n g s

w o u l d n o t m a k e i t l e s s p r o b a b l e t h a t a p p e l l a n t “ p l a n n e d t h e r i p o f f ” a n d w a s a p a r t y t o M r s

.

H a r r i s o n ’ s m u r d e r

. C h a p t e r 6 4 d e a l s o n l y w i t h t e s t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t c o u l d e s t a b l i s h

, b y a

p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e

, t h a t t h e p e r s o n “ w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d i f

e x c u l p a t o r y r e s u l t s ” w e r e o b t a i n e d

. T h e s t a t u t e d o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e t e s t i n g w h e n 5 8

e x c u l p a t o r y t e s t i n g r e s u l t s m i g h t a f f e c t o n l y t h e p u n i s h m e n t o r s e n t e n c e t h a t h e r e c e i v e d

. 5 9

I n t h i s c a s e

, e v e n s u p p o s i n g t h a t a D N A t e s t r e s u l t s h o w e d G r a c i a ’ s D N A i n t h e f i n g e r n a i l

s c r a p i n g s t a k e n f

r o m M r s

. H a r r i s o n

, t h i s e v i d e n c e w o u l d

, a t b e s t

, s h o w o n l y t h a t G r a c i a

,

r a t h e r t h a n a p p e l l a n t

, w a s t h e s e c o n d s t a b b e r i n t h e h o u s e

. I t w o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t

Rivera , 89 S.W .3d at 60. 5 7

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 64.03(a )(2) (A). 5 8

See Kutzner v . State , 75 S.W .3d 427, 437-42 (Te x . Crim. App. 2002) (conc luding, a fter 5 9

leng thy analy sis of leg islative lang uag e and intent, that statute w as intended to provide testing

only for those w ho would not have be en “pr osecute d or convic ted” of the offe nse had the

exculpatory

test results been pr eviously available , not for those who mig ht show a “diff ere nt

outcome unre lated to the convic ted per son’s g uilt/i nnocenc e”) ; Torres v. State , 104 S.W .3d 638,

642 (Houston [1st Dis t.] 2003, pet. re f’d) (“[W] e hold that a de fenda nt may not seek for ensic

DNA testing for the pur

pose of a ffe cting the punishment assessed.” ).Gutierre z P ag e 30

a p p e l l a n t

, w h o a d m i t t e d l y m a s t e r m i n d e d “ t h e r i p

- o f f

, ” w a s n o t a p a r t y t o M r s

. H a r r i s o n ’ s

m u r d e r

. A n d

, e v e n i f C h a p t e r 6 4 d i d a p p l y t o e v i d e n c e t h a t m i g h t a f f e c t t h e p u n i s h m e n t 6 0

s t a g e a s w e l l a s c o n v i c t i o n

, a p p e l l a n t s t i l l w o u l d n o t b e e n t i t l e d t o t e s t i n g

. A p p e l l a n t w o u l d

s t i l l h a v e b e e n d e a t h

- e l i g i b l e b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d f a c t s s a t i s f

y t h e E n m u n d

/ T i s o n c u l p a b i l i t y

r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a t h e p l a y e d a m a j o r r o l e i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g r o b b e r y a n d t h a t h i s a c t s s h o w e d

a r e c k l e s s i n d i f

f e r e n c e t o h u m a n l i f

e

. 6 1

I n s u m

, g r a n t i n g D N A t e s t i n g i n t h i s c a s e w o u l d “ m e r e l y m u d d y t h e w a t e r s

. ”

A p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t s e e k t e s t i n g o f b i o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e l e f t b y a l o n e a s s a i l a n t

, a n d a

t h i r d

- p a r t y m a t c h t o t h e r e q u e s t e d b i o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e w o u l d n o t o v e r c o m e t h e

o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e o f h i s d i r e c t i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e m u l t i

- a s s a i l a n t m u r d e r

. H a v i n g

o v e r r u l e d a l l o f

a p p e l l a n t ’ s p o i n t s o f

e r r o r

, w e a f

f i r m t h e c o n v i c t i n g c o u r t ’ s o r d e r s d e n y i n g

t h e r e q u e s t f

o r a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l a n d d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r f o r e n s i c D N A t e s t i n g

p u r s u a n t t o T e x a s C o d e C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e C h a p t e r 6 4

.

D e l i v e r e d : M a y 4

, 2 0 1 1

P u b l i s h

See R ivera , 89 S.W .3d at 60 (finding that the abse nce of

the victim’s DNA f

rom 6 0

underne ath the def

endant’ s fing erna ils would not have supported the pr obability of his innocenc e

in light of de fenda

nt’s confe ssion which was c orrobor ated by independe nt evidence ; “Even if one

conclude d that neg ative test re sults suppl ied a ve ry wea k exculpatory

infere nce, suc h an infe renc e

would not come close to outweig hing [defe ndant’s] confession.”)

.

Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) (Eig hth Amendment does not prohibit death 6 1

penalty as disproportionate in c ase of defe ndant whose pa

rticipation in felony

that results in

murder is major a

nd whose menta l state is one of re ckless indiffe renc e); Enmund v. Florida , 458

U.S. 782 (1982); Article 37.071(2)( b)(2)

.