AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed May 4, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01547-CR

TIMOTHY SCOTT HARRIMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F94-01553-ML

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Evans

Timothy Scott Harriman appeals from the trial court’s denial of his post-conviction 

motion for DNA testing. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his 

motion because he met his burden to show the statutory prerequisites for testing. We affirm the 

trial court’s order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty-four years’ confinement. We 

affirmed the conviction in Harriman v. State, No. 05-94-00905-CR, 1995 WL 635032 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas Oct. 12, 1995, no pet.). The evidence presented at trial included a signed 

voluntary statement by appellant. According to appellant’s statement, on the evening of 

September 16, 1993, he and his roommate, George Vanlandingham, were in their apartment

along with several neighbors. Vanlandingham purchased cocaine from a neighbor named Carlos 
–2–

as well as beer for the group. Appellant stated he became angry with Vanlandingham for 

spending money on beer and cocaine because he owed appellant $100 in rent. Appellant left the 

apartment and, when he returned, Vanlandingham was alone. Appellant said he and

Vanlandingham began to argue about the rent money and appellant grabbed him by the throat 

and squeezed until Vanlandingham “went limp and fell to the ground.” Appellant stated he 

thought Vanlandingham was only unconscious because he felt a pulse, so he moved 

Vanlandingham to the area of the apartment where he slept and covered him with a sheet.

The following morning, appellant realized Vanlandingham was dead. Appellant did not 

call the police because he was afraid they would think he intended to kill Vanlandingham. 

Instead, he wrapped the body in a sheet and put him in a closet. The next day, appellant left to 

stay at a friend’s. Vanlandingham’s body was discovered two days later by an apartment 

complex maintenance worker. Appellant was indicted and convicted for causing 

Vanlandingham’s death by strangling him. 

On August 15, 2012, appellant filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant 

to chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The State responded that it had retained 

two pieces of biological evidence in the case but argued the request for testing should be denied

because the identity of the person who committed the offense was not at issue in the case and the 

results could not prove appellant’s innocence. The trial court denied appellant’s motion without 

a hearing finding that identity was not an issue and there was no showing that appellant would 

not have been convicted even if DNA testing had shown the biological material did not belong to 

him. Appellant now brings this appeal of the trial court’s denial of his motion. 
–3–

ANALYSIS

Chapter 64 of the code of criminal procedure governs a convicted person’s request for 

post-conviction forensic DNA testing and contains multiple threshold requirements that must be 

met before a movant is entitled to such testing. Appellant bears the burden of meeting all 

statutory predicates. See Routier v. State, 273 S.W.3d 241, 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). When a 

trial court rules on a motion for DNA testing without conducting a hearing, we review the court’s 

ruling de novo. See Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We must 

assume for purposes of our review that the results of the DNA testing would be favorable to 

appellant. See Routier, 273 S.W.3d at 257.

Among the requirements for testing under Chapter 64, a movant must show that identity 

was an issue in the case. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2014) 

Appellant contends identity was an issue here because he testified at trial that Vanlandingham 

still had a pulse after he choked him and many other people had access to the apartment and the 

victim on the date of the offense. Appellant was indicted and convicted, however, on the basis 

that his admitted strangling of Vanlandingham was the cause of death. Although appellant 

disputed that his actions killed Vanlandingham, there was no evidence presented at trial of any 

other potential cause of death. Because appellant admitted to the conduct the jury concluded 

caused Vanlandingham’s death, identity was not an issue in the case.

A second requirement for testing is that the movant must show by a preponderance of the 

evidence that he would not have been convicted if the DNA testing had revealed exculpatory 

results. Id. art. 64.03(a)(2)(A). This showing is not made if the exculpatory test results would 

“merely muddy the waters.” Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55, 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). 

Appellant argues that, if a third person’s DNA were found on Vanlandingham, this would 

support his defensive theory that another person, such as Carlos, was responsible for the murder. 
–4–

The biological evidence available for testing in this case was a “head hair” and “hairs from 

hands.” The evidence was undisputed that numerous people, including Carlos, were with 

Vanlandingham shortly before he was killed. Accordingly, even if the hairs found on 

Vanlandingham belonged to someone else, this fact would neither prove that person’s guilt nor 

disprove appellant’s. See Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (en banc) 

(presence of another person’s DNA at crime scene will not, without more, constitute affirmative 

evidence of movant’s innocence). Again, appellant admitted to the conduct the jury concluded 

caused Vanlandingham’s death. At best, the requested DNA evidence would only “muddy the 

waters.” The trial court did not err in concluding that DNA testing was not required. 

We overrule appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s order.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

131547F.U05

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–5–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TIMOTHY SCOTT HARRIMAN, 

Appellant

No. 05-13-01547-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F94-01553-ML.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices 

Francis and Stoddart participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 4th day of May, 2015.