### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-06-00183- CR

In re A. D. Bowm an

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY , 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 13,395 -B , HO NORAB LE CURT F . STEIB , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
A. D. B ow man a

pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r “ dis mis sin g [his ] m oti on fo r f or e ns ic DNA testing .” We will affir m the order
. B ow man w a s c on vic te d o f a g gravat ed sexua l a ssa ult and se nte nc e d to fo rt

y y e a rs ’ imprisonment in 1983. In October 2003, Bow man filed a

pro se r equest for

appointment of counse l stating that he wished to file a motion for DNA testing. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt
. 64 .0 1( c ) ( Wes t Su

pp . 2 00 5) . In D e c e mbe r 2 00 3, in order to det ermine if the re we re “ re a so na

ble g rounds for a

motion to be filed” and thus to appoint counse l, the di s t ri ct court asked the district atto r n e y to inv e s ti g a te an d

r e p o rt w h e th e r

an y b io lo g ic a l e v id e n c e e xis te d o nw h ic h D N A te sting would be possi ble. Se e id
. On Fe b ru ary 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , Bo wm an fi l ed a pr o s e m o t i o nfo r D NA t es t i n g. Se e id . art. 64.01(a ), (b)
.

On Fe bruar y 1 3 , 2006, the offic e administrator f or the district attorne y

advised the court in writin g t h at n ei t h er the district attorney nor the police depar

tment had possession of any2

evidenc e collec ted during the investig ation of this off ense. Tw o day s later, the district c ourt signe d the orde r now on a

ppeal. In its orde r, the court found that semen evidenc e was used at B owman’s trial in 1983, bu t t h at no evidence is pre sently available for DN A testing . Although the order purports to dismiss Bowman’s pro se motion for DNA testing , the eff ect of the orde r is to deny the motion on a finding that no biologica l evidence suitable for D NA testing still exis ts. See id . a rt
. 64.03(a) (1)( A)(I ).

I n h is p ro se br ie f, B ow man ur g e s that th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d b y fa ili ngto a

pp oin t hi m
co u n s el b ef

o re ru l i n g o nh i s t es t i n g m o t i o n , ci t i n g C l a r k v . Sta te , 8 4 S. W. 3 d

3 1 3 , 3 1 4 ( T e x. App.—B eaumont 2002, pet. r ef’ d). Cla rk is n o t o n p o i n t beca

use it was dec ided bef

ore the 2003 amendmen t o f arti c le 6 4
. 0 1
. U n d e r 6 4
. 0 1 a s o r ig in a ll y e n a c te d , th e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l w as mandatory if the convicted person wa s indige nt. Neve u v. Culver , 105 S.W. 3d 64 1, 64 2 ( Te x. Cr im. App
. 2 0 0 3 )
. B u t a s a me n d e d b e f o r e B o w ma

n r e qu e s te d c o u n s e l, arti c le 6 4
. 0 1 ( c ) r e quires the appointment of counse l only if the trial cour

t finds rea sonable gro u n d s for a testing motion to be filed. B owman’s r equest for counsel did not contain any rec itals of fac t that would support a finding of re asonable g rounds. And in light of the undi sputed finding that no evidenc e suitable for DNA testing pr esently

exis ts, the trial co u rt d id not rever sibly err by failing to appoint counsel bef ore ruling on Bow man’s pro se testing motion.

Al tho ug h h e do e s n ot p re se nt t his c on te nti on

a s a se pa ra te po int of e rror, we a lso
un de rs tand

B ow man to a sse rt

that th e State ’s fa ilure to p re se rv e the bio log ic a l e vid e nc e de nie d h im due cour se of law
. Se e Pe na v . S tat e , 166 S.W .3d 274, 281 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005), vacate d , 191 S.W .3d 133, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). I n Pena , a prosec ution f or possession of

marihuana , the3

alleg ed contr aband was destroy ed bef ore the defe ndant’s trial a nd without giving the def ense a n opportunity

to conduct its own t es t i ng . Id . at 276-77. The re is a c lear distinction between the destruction of e vidence befor e the defenda nt’s trial and the failure to prese rve evidence twenty y ear s afte r trial. The statute requiring the preservation of biologica l material wa s not adopted until 2001, t h e s am e y ear

chapte r 64 wa s enac ted. See T e x. Co d e Cr im
. Pr o c . A n n . art. 3 8
. 4 3 ( We s t S upp. 2005). Unde r the c ir cumstance s shown by this recor d, we c onclude that the State did not deny Bow man due c ourse of

law by failing to preser

ve the biolog ical evide nce g ather ed in 1983. The district cour

t’s order is affirme d.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: Oc tober 6, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh