Opinion
No. 14-06-00407-CR.
Opinion delivered March 15, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 769,768.
Panel consists of Justices, YATES, ANDERSON, and HUDSON.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Nicomedes Santibanez, challenges the trial court's denial of his post-conviction motion for DNA testing. Appellant raises two issues on appeal. In his first issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion on the basis that identity was not an issue at trial. In his second issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion because the record was undisputed that materials suitable for testing were in the State's possession. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A jury found appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to incarceration for life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion issued June 29, 2000. See Santibanez v. State, No. 14-98-00830-CR, 2000 WL 854862 (Tex.App.CHouston [14th Dist.] June 29, 2000, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). On October 8, 2004, appellant, by and through appointed counsel, filed a post-conviction motion for DNA testing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 64.01B64.05 (Vernon 2006). The trial court, based on its negative finding on the issues listed in Article 64.03(a)(1) and its finding that appellant failed to meet the burden of proof requirements under Article 64.03(a)(2), denied appellant's request for DNA testing. This appeal followed.STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a convicting court's denial of a motion for post-conviction DNA testing under a bifurcated standard of review. Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55, 59 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (citing Guzmam v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997)). We afford almost total deference to a trial court's determination of issues of historical fact and application-of-law-to-fact issues that turn on credibility and demeanor, while we review de novo other application-of-law-to-fact issues. Id.DISCUSSION
In two issues, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing: (1) where appellant entered a plea of not-guilty, thereby placing his identity into issue; and (2) where the State had evidence in its possession suitable for DNA testing. I. Requirements for post-conviction DNA testing. Under Chapter 64, a convicting court may order forensic DNA testing 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 of the proposed DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice.TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03(a) (Vernon 2006) (emphasis added). While it is true that any convicted person may request DNA testing, by its explicit terms Chapter 64 does not require the trial court to grant that request in all cases. Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301, 306 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). A court must order testing only if the statutory requirements are met. Id.
II. Was identity an issue in the case?
We now turn to appellant's first issue, in which appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his post-conviction motion for DNA testing because identity was an issue in his case. Appellant argues, without citing any authority, that his plea of not-guilty was sufficient to raise the issue of identity at trial. Appellant contends that such a plea puts every material allegation in the indictment at issue, citing article 27.17 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 27.17 (Vernon 1989). We disagree that identity was at issue. In cases involving post-conviction DNA testing, a plea of not guilty does not automatically place identity at issue. See Bell, 90 S.W.3d at 308. In Bell, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that identity was not an issue, regardless of the defendant's plea of not guilty, because the defendant confessed to the charged offense. Id. Furthermore, courts have held identity is not an issue if a defendant admits he was with the victim at the time of the offense and later pleads not guilty. See Morris v. State, 110 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tex.App.CEastland 2003, pet. ref'd) (holding identity was not at issue when defendant's statements showed he and victim were together when assault occurred). In the present case, appellant not only admitted to being with the victim at the time of the shooting, he admitted to being the shooter. In a taped interview with a police investigator, appellant made the following statement:Investigator: When you shot him, were you inside the car?
[Appellant]: Outside.
Investigator: Ok, and then you got out of the car?
[Appellant]: After, yes.
Investigator: Ok, after he told you no dumb-shit.
[Appellant]: Um-huh.
Investigator: And how many times did you shoot him there at the bus stop?
[Appellant]: Ah, but I didn't, . . . two but didn't, but I didn't do anything to him.
Investigator: Ok.
[Appellant]: Then I hit him about four I think, five.
Investigator: Five, so then you shot him two times there at the bus stop, but you didn't hit him?
[Appellant]: No.
Investigator: And what did he do?
[Appellant]: You could say, like he . . . wanted to leave.
Investigator: Um-huh.
[Appellant]: But well, for what he had said, and also for what he did two years ago, that is, is why I did what I that [sic].
Investigator: So he ran?
[Appellant]: Yes, he wanted to run. Investigator: And did you follow him?
[Appellant]: Just a little piece [sic], there to the corner, like this. But because he already did that two years ago.
Investigator: And did you shoot him there?
[Appellant]: Yes.
Investigator: How many more times did you shoot him?
[Appellant]: That is, the magazine to the nine, but I hit him like about four, five, that's all.Appellant also testified at trial and admitted to shooting the victim. Thus, identity was not an issue, regardless of appellant's plea of not guilty, because appellant confessed to the charged offense. See Bell, 90 S.W.3d at 308. We overrule appellant's first issue.