Radkev.State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at DallasMay 13, 2014
No. 05-13-00963-CR (Tex. App. May. 13, 2014)

Cases citing this document

How cited

  • Radke v. State

    Second, Radke in October 2011 filed a motion for forensic DNA testing, which the trial court denied. This…

1 Citing case

No. 05-13-00963-CR

05-13-2014

CHRISTOPHER ARIC RADKE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


Affirm and Opinion Filed May 13, 2014

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F96-02380-N


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers

Opinion by Justice Bridges

Christopher Aric Radke was convicted of the murder of his wife in October 1997. The trial court assessed punishment at life imprisonment. This Court affirmed appellant's conviction in July 1999. Radke v. State, No. 05-97-01978-CR, 1999 WL 455514 (Tex. App—Dallas July 7, 1999, pet. ref'd). The trial court denied appellant's motion for appointment of counsel under Article 64.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in April 2011. Appellant filed a motion for forensic DNA testing in October 2011. The State responded that appellant's claim that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing was without merit, and his claims were within the province of a blood spatter expert and not under Chapter 64. On May 31, 2013, the trial court denied appellant's motion for forensic DNA testing stating identity was not an issue in this case because the only issue was whether "defendant pulled the trigger or the victim shot herself." The trial court's order also stated appellant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the results of the DNA testing would be exculpatory and that he would not have been convicted had the results been obtained through DNA testing at the time. of trial. This appeal followed.

Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is 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 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant.

Appellant filed a pro se response that raises several issues. After reviewing counsel's brief, appellant's pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (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 appellant's request for DNA testing.

We affirm the trial court's order denying the motion for forensic DNA testing. Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
130963F.U05

__________

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE

JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER ARIC RADKE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee No. 05-13-00963-CR

Appeal from the 195th Judicial District

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.

F96-02380-N).

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges,

Justices Francis and Lang-Miers

participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's order denying motion for forensic DNA testing is AFFIRMED.

__________

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE