![]() The convicting court made no other findings related to appellant s request for DNA testing. ![]() The convicting court signed an order finding that the evidence was insufficient to order DNA testing because he evidence in question is not in a condition making DNA testing possible. Appellant s counsel stated that Freeman s affidavit appear regular on its face, and that, because appellant had no evidence to contradict the statements in the DPS report, appellant was left with little to do but to accept the results of the affidavit. The trial court then asked appellant s counsel to respond. Reading from the affidavit and lab report, the State s counsel represented to the convicting court that no evidence remained that could be subject to DNA testing. At the hearing, the State introduced Freeman s affidavit and the attached lab report into evidence. Īlthough not required, the convicting court conducted a hearing on appellant s motion for DNA testing. The minute quantity of blood present on this shoe was consumed during analysis. Under the heading of Results of Analysis, the report stated as follows: Human blood was detected on Detrick D. Freeman attached a copy of the DPS s lab report, dated June 3, 1995, to her affidavit. Ruben // was consumed during analysis performed in 1996. In her affidavit, Freeman stated that the minute quantity of blood found on the right tennis shoe of Detrick D. The affidavit was signed by Robin Freeman, supervisor for the serology/DNA testing section of the Texas Department of Public Safety ( DPS ). Two months later, the State filed an Evidence Records Affidavit. The State s counsel notified both the convicting court and appellant s counsel in writing that with regard to further DNA testing, there is no remaining sample to submit for testing. ![]() The convicting court ordered the State to deliver the requested evidence to the court for testing or explain in writing why the State could not deliver the evidence. In 2002, appellant filed a motion for DNA testing. In his sole point of error, appellant contends that the convicting court erred in finding that the evidence was not in a condition making DNA testing possible.Īppellant pled guilty to murder in 1997 and was sentenced to 23 years confinement in prison. Appellant, Louis Shannon Brown, challenges the convicting court s order denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |