|
|
|
|
Opinion filed November 16, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-06-00070-CR
__________
CHRISTOPHER CLARENCE RHYNES, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 21,046-A
O P I N I O N
Christopher Clarence Rhynes appeals the trial court=s denial of his motion for DNA testing under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01-.05 (Vernon Supp. 2006). We affirm.
In two issues on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion and that the trial court did not apply the correct evidentiary standard. Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court never made findings concerning the availability of the biological evidence or whether identity was an issue and that the trial court failed to find by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant would not have been convicted of murder if DNA testing of the biological evidence had rendered exculpatory results.
Article 64.03 provides in relevant part:
(a) A convicting court may order forensic DNA testing under this chapter only if:
(1) the court finds that:
(A) the evidence:
(i) still exists and is in a condition making DNA testing possible; and
(ii) has been subjected to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material respect; and
(B) identity was or is an issue in the case; and
(2) the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(A) the person would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing; and
(B) the request for the proposed DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice.
Article 64.03 does not require the trial court to enter any findings on the denial of a motion for testing.
The State argues that the trial court correctly denied the motion because appellant did not establish that identity was an issue in the underlying murder case. We agree. In both his motion and his brief on appeal, appellant describes the altercation that resulted in the victim=s death as a physical confrontation between appellant and the victim. In fact, appellant contends in both documents that he acted in self-defense. Article 64.03 Aonly@ allows the trial court to grant motions to test when identity is an issue.
Appellant has not established that the trial court erred in denying his motion. Both issues are overruled.
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
November 16, 2006
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.