### NUM BER 13-07- 0009 6-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
WIL LIA M GER OM E K ING, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 80t h Dist rict C ou rt o f H arris C ou nt y , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t W il li am Gerome Ki ng w as conv ic ted b y a j ur y for t he offense of

ca pit al
mu rder and assesse d a punishm ent of life imprison me nt on July 1, 199 4. T he First Court of Appeals a ff ir med appel lan t’ s c onv ic ti on on Nov ember 22, 1995. Ki

ng v . St ate , N o. 01- 94- 00754- CR , 199 5 W L 69473 8 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust o n [1st Di st. ] N ov . 22, 1995, pet. ref ’d) (not designat ed f or pub lication). S ubse quently, on Novembe r 21, 20 06, the trial courtO u r u n d e r s ta n d in g o fth e u n d e r lyin g c o n v ic tio n c o m e s f r o m t h e F ir s t C o u r t o fA p p e a ls ’s o p in io n in 1 th a t c a s e
. S e e K in g v . S ta te , N o. 01- 94- 00754
- C R , 1995 W L 694738 ( T ex. A pp. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] N ov
. 22, 19 95 , pe t

. ref' d) (no t de s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ). 2 deni ed Ki ng ’s moti on for post -c onv ic ti on foren si c D NA tes ti ng under ch apter 64 o f the c ode of cr imi nal procedu re
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 64. 03 (Ve rnon Supp . 200 7). By a s ing le is sue , Ki n g a rg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d w hen i t den ied hi s mot ion for for en s i cD N A te s ti ng
. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND 1 The v ic ti m in the under ly ing mur der co nv ic ti on, J ose Jes us Men chac a, often w or ked for Francisco Barrient ez. Barrient ez perm itted Mencha ca to liv e in Barrient ez’s tax of f ice becau se the off ic e had been prev iou sl y burg lar iz ed. Me nchac a slepton a couch and k ept a g un unde r the s ofa cus hio n for pr otec ti on. K in g o f t e n ca m e b y B a rr ie n t e z’s o f f ic e a n d ra n e rr a n d s f o r B a rr ie n t e z. B a rr ie n t e z, howev er, asked King not to come by the of f ice at closing time wi th King’s f riends be cause Barrien t e z o f

ten lef t the of f ice w ith $4 0,0 00 to $50 ,00 0 in checks. Tw o w eeks b ef ore Me nchac a’s death, Ba rr ien tezbec ame su spi ci ous of King bec ause Bar ri entez ’s off ic e w as burg lar iz ed, a nd Ki ng off er ed to r ecov er the it ems i n ex chang e for $15. On t he nig ht of M encha ca’ s death, Ki ng came by the off ic e ar ound 7:30 p.m. w it h a f riend, and Barriente zasked them to leave. King and his f riend w ent t o a con v enie nce sto re ac ro ss the street and re tur ned to t he office a ro und 9: 00 p. m., on ly to hav e Bar ri entez ask them to l eav e ag ain

. After bei ng as ked to l eave , Ki n g and his fri end r etur ned t o the
conv eni ence sto re
. W hen Ba rr ien tezl eft the o ff ic e, M encha ca re mained

. The next mor nin g , Ba rr ien tez dr ov e by the b uil din g and noti ced that the fr ont d oor3

w as op en. Barrientez fo und Mench aca sitting on th e cou ch w ith w hat Barriente zinitially bel iev ed to be red pai nt al l o ver Me n chaca’ s face and t he s ur ro undi ng floor

. Bar ri entez als o s aw w hit e pai nt s pla ttered all o v er the ro om. After real iz ing M encha ca w as dead, Bar ri entezca ll ed th e pol ic e. Law enforc ement au thor it ies cont act ed Ki ng the day after M encha ca’ s d eath. Ki ng initially told law enf orcem ent that h e l a s t saw Mencha ca at 4: 00 p .m . the day M ench aca die d. Ki ng g av e l aw

enforc ement pe rmi ss ion to sear ch his home. At Kin g’s home, law enforc ement fo u n d a c o a t stai ned w it h w hit e pai nt an d a p air of shoes w it h s ole s t hat matche d a p atter n l eft in the w hit e pai nt atthe tax off ic e. In his po lice state me nt, Kin g claime d he w as alon e at the convenien ce store acro ss from the tax

off ic e on the n ig ht M encha ca die d. He br iefly tal ked to M encha ca as they pass ed i n the st or e, an d King saw Mench aca re tur n to the tax of fice for the remaind er

of the n ig ht. Ki ng sa id he s aw someone “ ru sh” M encha ca, pus h M encha ca ins ide the off ic e, and hi t hi m on t he head w it h a p ain t buc ketw hen M encha ca opened the o ff ic e door . Kin g cl aimed he w ent t o the tax off ice a n d confronted the a ttac ker

. Ki ng al so sai d tha t Me nchac a g ra bbed hi s g un w hen t he at tac ker beg an looti ng the off ic e. Ki ng cl aimed that a str ug g le ov er

the g un ens ued betw een t he at tac ker and Me nchac a, du ri ng w hic h the g un discha rg ed, k il li n g Me n c haca . King said the att acker lef t w ith the g un a nd o the r of f ice item s. Ki ng l ater

made an other

st atement in w hic h he admit ted t h a t h e d id not tel l the police th e w hole truth in his f irst state me nt. King claime d tha t on th e night of Mencha ca’s death, he w as w it h hi s fr ien d, C li fton Ful ler. Ki n g s a id he s aw M encha ca at t he
conv eni ence sto re , and then Ki ng and Ful ler par ted c ompany
. Ki ng then cl aimed he s aw4

Ful ler “ ru sh” M encha ca a n d push M encha ca ins ide the off ic e. Ki ng al leg ed th at he r an
ov er to pul l Ful ler off Me nchac a. Me nchac a then g ot his g un, a nd Ki ng cl aimed he g ra bbed Me nchac a’s hand to s top h im fr om usi ng the g un, b ut t h a t duri ng the str ug g le, the g un dis charg ed, k il li ng M encha ca. Anothe r w it ness tes ti fied that on th e ni g ht of M encha ca’ s d eath, Ki ng so ld a g un for
cr ack co cai ne. The g un s old w as cov er ed w it h w hit e pai nt an d l a te r id enti fied as the murde r w eapon. At tr ial , t he medi cal ex aminer tes ti fied the gun that shotMench aca w as “a t l east ” tw enty -four

i nches aw ay

from hi s h ead. II. D I S CUS S I ON On J une 20, 2006, Ki ng filed a moti on for forens ictes ti ng of DN A ev ide nce and a af f idavit i n sup port of

his mot ion. In h is motio n, King claime d tha t the police we re in custo d y o f

the cl othi ng thathe w or e the ni g ht of the mur der but nev er

tes ted i t for DN A. Ki ng arg ued t hat h is cl othi ng w oul d c ontai n bl ood s pla tter i f he had s hot M encha ca, and that DN A te sti ng w oul d s how the absen ce of blood spl atter , t her eby prov ing his inn ocenc e. T he St ate respon ded to King’s motio n by arg uing that he f ailed to me e t t h e statu tory
re q uirements for p ost -c onv ic ti on DN A testi ng
. Spec ific all y , the State arg ued t hat h e had admit ted to bei ng at the sc ene w it h F ull er , t he i ndi v idu al Ki ng cl aims “ ru shed” M encha ca, and t her efore, Ki ng fail ed to sa ti sfythe ide nti ty r eq uirement. The tr ial co urt den ied Ki ng ’s moti on for post -c onv ic ti on forens ic DN A te sti ng on t he g ro unds that Ki ng ( 1) fail ed to demons tr ate t hat i denti ty w as or i s a n i ss ue i n the i nst ant
cas e; an d ( 2) fail ed to demons tr ate, by pr eponderance of t he ev ide nce, that he w oul d not hav e been conv ic ted i f ex cul pator y r esul ts had been obtai ned throug h D NA tes ti ng
. SeeT hi s app eal was t r ansf er r ed t o t hi s C our t f r om t he Fi r st C our t ofAppeal s by or der of t he T exas 2 S u p re m e C o u rt. See T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN
. § 2 2 .2 2 0 ( V e rn o n 2 0 0 4 ) (d e l i n e a ti n g th e ju ris d i c ti o n o f a p p e l l a te c o u rts ); T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN
. § 73. 001 ( Ver non 2005) (g r ant i ng t he supr em e cour t t he aut hor i t y t o t r ansf er c as es fr om on e c ou rt of ap pe al s t o a no t he r at an y t i m e t ha t t he re i s “goo d c au s e” for t he t ran s fer).
5 T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art 64.03( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. This appeal ens ued. 2 A
. St and ard o f Rev iew W e r ev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s d eci si on to deny post -c onv ic ti on forens ic DN A tes ti ng us ing the b ifur cat ed Guz

m an st andard. See, e.g., R iv er a v . St ate , 89 S. W .3 d 55 , 59 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p . 2 0 0 2 ) (ci ti n g Guz m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d 8 5, 89 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ). U nder the Guz m an st andard, al most total deferen ce is affor ded t o the tr ial co urt’ s d eter minat ion of his tor ic al fa ct i ssues and t he appl ic ati on of l aw to facts that tur n on cr edi bil it y or dem ean or, but the review ing court r eview s de no v o oth er app lications o f law to fact issue s. Ri ver a, 89 S .W .3d a t 59. The ult imat e ques ti on of w hether a de fendant c an demons tr ate by a prep ond eran ce of

the evidence that e x culpa tory DNA te sts w ould prove his i nno cence is an a ppl ic ati on- of-l aw -t o- fact q uest ion thatdoes not tur n on cr edi bil it y and demeanor

and is t h e re fo re re vie we d d e n o vo
. Id. B. A pp licab le L aw Ar ti cl e 64. 03( a) , ( b) of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal P ro cedure set s for th t he
re qui re m e n ts fo r whe n a co n vict in g co u rtm a y ord e r fo re n sic te st in g: (a ) A c onv inc ing co urt may order forens ic DN A te sti ng under thi s c hapter o n l y i f: (1 ) the c our

t finds that : (A ) the e v ide nce: ( i ) sti ll ex i s t s a n d i s i n a c o n d i t ion maki ng DN A te sti ng pos si ble ; and ( i i ) ha s b e e n s u bj e c t e d t o a c h a i n o f c u sto dy suffici ent t o es tabl is h tha t i t has not b een6 subs ti tuted , t amper ed w it h, repl aced, or al ter ed in any mater ial r espec t; and (B ) ide nti ty

w as or i s a n i ss ue i n the ca se; and (2 ) the c onv ic ted p erson est a b li shes by a preponderance of the ev ide nce that: (A) the person w ould not ha v e be en co nvicted if ex c ul pa to r

y r es ul ts h ad b ee n ob ta i ne d th r ou g h D NA tes ti ng ; and (B ) the req uestfor t he propose d D NA tes ti ng i s n ot made to un re asona bly

del ay ex ecut ion of

se ntenc e or admini strati on of j ust ic e. (b ) A c onv ic ted p erson w ho pl eaded g uil ty or nol o cont ender e or , w hether bef ore or af

ter conviction, m ade a conf ession o r sim ilar ad mission in the c ase maysu bmita motion under thi s c hapter , and the conv ic ti ng cour t i s p ro hib it ed from fin din g thati denti ty w as n o t an is sue in the cas e s ole ly

on t he bas is of that ple a, c onfessi on, o r a d mis si on, a s appl ic abl e. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 64.03 (a ), ( b) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007)

. A defendant w ho r eq uest s D NA testi ng can make ide nti ty an i ss ue by

sh ow ing that
ex cul pator

y D NA tes ts w oul d prov e hi s i nnoce nce. See B lac klock v. Sta te, 2 3 5 S.W .3d 231, 233 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. Mo re ov er , a cour t c annot make i denti ty

a no n- is sue b a s e d s o l e l y u p o n a d e fe n d a n t ’ s g u i l t y p l e a , c o n fe s s i o n , o r a d mi s s i o n. See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 64. 0 3 (b ); bu t see , Be ll v. Sta te , 90 S .W .3 d 30 1, 3 08 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2002) ( sug g est ing thata pr ior co nfessi on r enders i denti ty a no n- is sue in a C hapter 64 p rocee ding). A defendant is n o t re q uired to prov e hi s “ act ual i nnoce nce” as a c ondi ti on to est abl is hin g hi s r ig ht to DNA testi ng , but rather , mus t onl y sh ow by a preponderance of the
ev ide nce that he w oul d nothav e been conv ic ted if ex cul pator y D NA tes t r esul ts had bee n obtai ned. Bl

ack loc k, 7 5 S. W .3 d at 23 3 (cit in g Kutz ner v. Sta te , 75 S.W .3d 4 27, 4 38- 439 (Tex . C ri m
. Ap p
. 2 002) ). A defendant c annot sat is fy thi s b ur den by sh ow ing that7

ex c ul pa to r

y t es t r es ul ts w ou l d “ me r el y mu dd y t he waters.” Ri ver

a, 89 S .W .3d a t 59; Kutz ner , 75 S.W .3d a t 438 -3 9. C. Denial of the Post-Conv iction Forensic DNA Testing On ap pea l, King arg ues th at th e cou rt erred w hen it f oun d tha t (1) identity w as a
non- is sue in the ins tant cas e, an d ( 2) he fai led to demonst ra te by a preponderance of the
ev ide nce that ex cul pator y DN A ev ide nce w oul d prov e hi s i nnoce nce. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 64.03. E ve n if we fo u n d t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rt im p ro p e rl y m a d e id e n t it y a n o n -i s s u e , we
conc lud e tha t Ki ng has fail ed to demonstr ate bya pr eponderance of the ev ide nce that he
w oul d nothav e been conv ic ted i f ex cul pator y D NA tes t r esul ts w er e obt ain ed. Ki ng r eli es on th e me d i c a l e x a mi n e r ’ s s t a t e me n t t h a t t h e g u n w a s fi r e d a t a d i s t a n c e o f “ a tl east ” tw ent y -four i nche s to suppo rt his claim that the v ictim’s bloo d and DNA w ould nece ssarily hav e s pla ttered ont o his shi rtat the time the g un w as dis charg ed. Ki ng fail s t o not e tha t th e me di c al e x am i ne r

o nl y t es ti fi ed t ha t th e s ho t w as fi r ed fr om at lea st tw ent y -four inche s. Therefor e, t he s hot c oul d h a ve been fired from a much g re ater di sta nce, su ch that the blo od w oul d nothav e s pla ttered ont o Ki ng ’s cl othi ng
. Ki ng al so faile d to pr ov ide
ex pla nati ons for ( 1) the sal e of the fire ar m impl ic ated in the murder for c ra ck

co cai ne; ( 2) the s hoe patte rn of hi s w hit e pai nt- sta ine d shoes that matche d a p atter n on the flo or of the murde r sc ene; or

( 3) hi s d ifferent sta tements to law enforc ement au thor it ies

. T here fore, we find that the evidence that could be obta in e d f ro m f oren sic DN A tes ti ng of the s hir

t Ki ng w or e at the time of the murder i s n ot s uff ic ien t t o demons tr ate b y a prep ond eran ce of

the evidence that King w ould not ha v e be en co nvicted if the DNA test8

re sul ts had bee n obt ain ed; rather , such ev ide nce coul d onl y “ mudd[y ] t he w aters” at best

. Ri ver a, 89 S. W .3d a t 59; K

u t z ner v. Sta te , 75 S.W .3d a t 438 -3 9; See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 64.03( a) (2 ). W e hol d that Ki ng faile d to sat is fy the re q uirements setforth in arti cl e 64.03( a) (2 ) of t he code of c ri minal pr ocedu re in or der to obtai n po st -c onv ic ti on forens icD NA

tes ti ng
. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 64 .03 (a)(2). T here fore, Kin g’s is sue is ov er ru led

. III
. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.