AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 29, 2015.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01189-CR
No. 05-14-01190-CR
MICHAEL LERON DOWDEN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F88-86404-M, F88-89370-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Evans
Opinion by Justice Fillmore
In August 1989, Michael Leron Dowden was convicted of murder and aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years’
imprisonment in each case. Dowden filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing in April
2012. The State responded that Dowden’s claim that he would not have been convicted if
exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing was without merit, and the DNA
testing of preserved biological evidence from the murder case (fingernails, hair sample, and
blood from victim’s shirt) would not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Dowden
did not commit murder whether it excluded or included Dowden as a donor of the biological
evidence. 1 On July 16, 2014, the trial court denied Dowden’s motion for post-conviction DNA
testing stating Dowden had not met his burden under Chapter 64 of the code of criminal
procedure to show he was entitled to post-conviction DNA testing because (1) there were at least
three individuals involved in the commission of the murder offense and at least two individuals
involved in the commission of the aggravated robbery offense, and (2) even if the biological
evidence did not include Dowden’s DNA, there would be no way for Dowden to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that he was not guilty of the two crimes, at least under the law of
parties. These appeals followed.
Dowden’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous
and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there
are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to Dowden. See Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and
counsel in Anders cases).
Dowden filed a pro se response. After reviewing counsel’s brief, Dowden’s pro se
response, and the record, we agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in
Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal of the trial
court’s order denying Dowden’s request for post-conviction DNA testing.
1
The State asserted in its response that “no agency has retained any biological evidence related to the aggravated
robbery” case.
-2-
We affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion for post-conviction DNA testing.
/Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
141189F.U05
-3-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
MICHAEL LERON DOWDEN, Appeal from the 194th Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F88-86404-M).
No. 05-14-01189-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore,
Justices Myers and Evans participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying motion for post-
conviction DNA testing is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered July 29, 2015.
-4-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
MICHAEL LERON DOWDEN, Appeal from the 194th Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F88-89370-M).
No. 05-14-01190-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore,
Justices Myers and Evans participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying motion for post-
conviction DNA testing is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered July 29, 2015.
-5-