IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00136-CR
MICHAEL SHAWN SADLER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 220th District Court
Bosque County, Texas
Trial Court No. 14104-A-BCCR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Shawn Sadler appeals from a judgment that denied his motion for post-
conviction DNA testing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. Ch. 64 (West Supp. 2014). Sadler
complains that the trial court erred by denying his motion because newer technologies
and techniques are available to analyze the items at issue and because he established a
greater than fifty percent likelihood that he would not have been convicted had
favorable results been obtained from the testing in question. Because we find no error,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the procedures for a
defendant to file a post-conviction motion for forensic DNA testing of biological
material. The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the defendant
that sets forth factual statements necessary to support the motion. Article 64.01 states
that the motion may request testing of evidence that was in the State’s possession at the
time of trial and that was secured in relation to the offense of which the defendant was
convicted. Further, as it relates to this proceeding, a defendant must show that the
sample, “although previously subjected to DNA testing, can be subjected to testing with
newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more
accurate and probative than the results of the previous test.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 64.01(b)(2). Sadler filed an affidavit in support of his motion that stated that
the items in question were tested for DNA but no profile was generated. Sadler averred
that newer methods of testing that are more accurate are available, but did not explain
any further what those methods are and why they would be more accurate than the
method used prior to his trial.
In its response to Sadler’s motion, the State filed an affidavit by the DPS lab
supervisor who had performed the initial DNA testing before Sadler’s trial. The
supervisor stated that testing was attempted on the items described in Sadler’s motion
but that there was insufficient DNA present to generate a DNA profile on those items.
Further, the supervisor stated that he was familiar with the testing methods at the time
Sadler v. State Page 2
of Sadler’s trial as well as the methods in use at the present time and there is no newer
testing method that would reasonably result in more accurate results.
The trial court denied Sadler’s motion without an oral or “live” hearing based on
the motion and the State’s response, including the affidavits attached to each. On
appeal, Sadler argues that because of the passage of approximately eight years from the
original testing to the date of the motion, newer techniques must be available that are
more discriminating.
In reviewing a trial court’s decision to deny a motion for post-conviction DNA
testing, where the trial record and the affidavit of the appellant are the only sources of
information supporting the motion, the trial court is in no better position than we are to
make its decision, and we review the issues de novo. Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361, 363
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (because trial court did not hold live hearing on request for
DNA testing, reviewing court would conduct de novo review as trial court was in no
better position to determine issues). Even if we assume that the items in question
contained biological material, it was Sadler’s burden to show that newer techniques are
available that would reasonably result in more accurate results. See TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(b)(2); Swearingen v. State, 303 S.W.3d 728, 733-34 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010); Dinkins v. State, 84 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Sadler did not
expressly set forth a specific newer technique at all in his motion or affidavit. Because
of this, he did not set forth statements of fact necessary to support his motion. TEX.
Sadler v. State Page 3
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(a-1). Based on our review of the record as presented
to the trial court, we do not find that the trial court erred by denying Sadler’s motion.
Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 12, 2015
Do not publish
[CRPM]
Sadler v. State Page 4