Opinion issued March 27, 2003
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-02-00307-CR
ALEX CANTU MARTINEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 477862
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Alex Cantu Martinez, appellant, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 1987 and the jury assessed punishment at confinement for life. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed by this Court in Martinez v. State, No. 01-88-00062-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 23, 1988) (not designated for publication). Appellant filed a motion requesting post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure articles 64.01-.05. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 64.01-.05 (Vernon Supp. 2003). The State filed a response to appellant’s motion, as required by article 64.02, stating that the evidence had been destroyed, and thus there was no evidence to test. A hearing was held in the presence of the State and appellant’s counsel. Appellant was not present at the hearing, and appellant’s counsel objected to his absence. The trial court denied appellant’s motion for DNA testing.
We affirm.
Issues
In his first and second points of error, appellant contends that the trial court violated his rights under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Texas, to due process, by conducting a hearing regarding appellant’s post-trial DNA motion without appellant’s being present. In his third and fourth points of error, appellant contends that the trial court violated his rights under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Texas, to due process, by denying appellant the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
This Court has held that a convicted person has no constitutional right to be present at a post-conviction DNA hearing, nor does he have a right to cross-examine witnesses. Cravin v. State, 95 S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
We overrule appellant’s points of error.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
/s/ Laura C. Higley
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Higley.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).