NO. 12-12-00382-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ALEX DALTON INGRAM, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Alex Dalton Ingram appeals from the trial court‟s order denying his motion for DNA 

testing. Appellant raises three issues on appeal. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged with murdering his daughter, Natalie Sheri Ingram. He pleaded 

nolo contendere and stipulated that on or about May 6, 1989, he intentionally and knowingly 

caused the death of Natalie by striking her head. Appellant was found guilty of his daughter‟s 

murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Once in prison, Appellant began to doubt his guilt. He filed an appeal, and this court 

affirmed the trial court‟s judgment.1 According to Appellant, he also filed two habeas corpus

applications, but both were denied.

 

1

See generally Ingram v. State, No. 12-90-00343-CR (Tex. App.–Tyler Jan. 31, 1992, no writ) (not 

designated for publication).
2

He then filed a motion for DNA testing.2In his motion, he sought authorization, not for 

testing his own DNA but for testing as to the cause of death of his daughter. He believed that 

testing would demonstrate that sudden infant death syndrome contributed to or “may have actually 

caused” the death of his daughter. On October 15, 2012, without appointing counsel for 

Appellant or conducting a hearing, the trial court denied Appellant‟s motion. On November 7, 

2012, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal in this court. The clerk of this court forwarded 

Appellant‟s notice of appeal to the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). 

DNA TESTING

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied 

his motion for DNA testing. In his second issue, he contends that the trial court erred by failing to 

appoint counsel for him. And in his third issue, he argues that the trial court erred by failing to 

conduct a hearing on his motion.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

In reviewing a trial court‟s denial of a motion for DNA testing, we utilize a bifurcated 

standard of review. See Whitaker v. State, 160 S.W.3d 5, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We usually 

give “almost total deference” to the trial court‟s findings of historical fact and application of law to 

fact issues that turn on witness credibility and demeanor, but consider de novo all other application 

of law to fact questions. Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883, 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

A convicted person may move for DNA testing of evidence containing biological material 

that was in the State‟s possession during trial (1) if that evidence was not previously subjected to 

DNA testing or (2) if it was previously tested, but can be subjected to testing with newer testing 

techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results which are more accurate and probative 

than the results of the previous test. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(b) (West Supp. 

2012). To be entitled to the testing, the convicted person must also show that (1) the evidence is 

available for testing, (2) it has been subjected to a sufficient chain of custody to establish that it has 

not been altered in any material way, (3) identity was or is an issue in the case, and that (4) by a 

preponderance of the evidence, he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been 

 

2 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 64.01-.05 (West 2007 & West Supp. 2012).
3

obtained through DNA testing, and the request is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of 

sentence or administration of justice. See id. art. 64.03(a) (West Supp. 2012). A convicted 

person who pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or made a confession or similar admission in the 

case may submit a motion for DNA testing, and the trial court may not deny the motion solely on 

the basis of that plea, confession, or admission. Id. art. 64.03(b) (West Supp. 2012).

“The identity requirement in Chapter 64 relates to the issue of identity as it pertains to the 

DNA evidence.” Prible v. State, 245 S.W.3d 466, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). To be entitled to 

the testing, the convicted person must demonstrate that the DNA testing would determine the 

identity of the perpetrator or would exculpate the accused. Id.

An indigent convicted person filing a motion for DNA testing has a limited right to 

appointed counsel conditioned, in part, on the trial court‟s finding that reasonable grounds exist for 

the motion. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(c) (West Supp. 2012). “Reasonable 

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

convicting court reasonably suggest that a „valid‟ or „viable‟ argument for testing can be made.” 

Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d at 891. 

A trial court is not required to conduct a hearing on a convicted person‟s motion for DNA 

testing. Whitaker, 160 S.W.3d at 8. 

Application

Appellant misunderstands the nature of DNA testing. In DNA testing, biological material 

is tested to determine the identity of the donor. In his motion for DNA testing, Appellant 

acknowledges that only he and his daughter were in the room when she died. Instead of using 

DNA testing to determine identity of either the perpetrator or of someone who would exculpate 

him, Appellant seeks to prove that his daughter‟s death was caused by sudden infant death 

syndrome rather than by his striking her head. DNA testing establishes identity. See TEX. CODE.

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2012). It does not establish cause of death. 

See id. Thus, Appellant‟s motion for DNA testing is deficient in that it failed to establish that 

identity was or is at issue. See Prible, 245 S.W.3d at 470. For the same reason, he failed to 

establish reasonable grounds for the motion, and therefore was not entitled to appointed counsel. 

See Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d at 891. Finally, he was not entitled to a hearing on his 

motion. See Whitaker, 160 S.W.3d at 8. We overrule Ingram‟s first, second, and third issues.
4

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Ingram‟s first, second, and third issues, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court.

BRIAN HOYLE

 Justice

Opinion delivered June 25, 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
5

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 25, 2013

NO. 12-12-00382-CR

ALEX DALTON INGRAM,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

 

 Appeal from the 7th Judicial District Court

 of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 7-89-284)

 

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.