Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Bryan Winters was convicted in 2016 of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment under a plea agreement. Physical evidence at trial included a carpet sample from the victim’s bedroom and buccal swabs from Winters. In November 2023, Winters filed a postconviction motion under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 64.01 requesting additional DNA testing of the carpet. He supported the motion with declarations stating that his biological son had been present in the bedroom and had deposited semen on the carpet.
Winters argued that DNA testing of the carpet would exonerate him by showing the semen belonged to his son, not to him. The trial court granted the motion in April 2024 and ordered DNA testing of the carpet and Winters’ DNA sample. After testing, the trial court held a hearing on January 8, 2025, and subsequently denied all relief on January 29, 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief. The court held that Article 64.01 strictly limits postconviction DNA testing to biological material that was both (1) “secured in relation to the offense” and (2) “in the possession of the [S]tate during the trial of the offense.” The State cannot be required to collect biological material that it does not already possess, nor can it be forced to collect DNA samples from alternative suspects like Winters’ biological son.
The court also found that Winters failed to preserve his due process claims for appeal because he did not raise them at the trial level. Although not preserving error, the court addressed the merits and concluded the trial court did not violate Winters’ rights by refusing to order testing of his son’s DNA, as such DNA was never in the State’s possession at trial and thus falls outside the scope of Chapter 64. The court also determined that any issues regarding service of DNA test results were either inapplicable or satisfied by the fact that results were provided to Winters’ counsel.
Key Takeaways
- Postconviction DNA testing under Article 64.01 is limited to biological material already in the State’s possession at trial—the State cannot be compelled to collect new biological samples from third parties.
- Constitutional due process claims in DNA testing proceedings must be preserved at the trial level or they are waived on appeal.
- Chapter 64 is a narrow procedural vehicle that does not permit collateral attacks on underlying convictions or challenges to matters outside the statute’s scope.
- The trial court’s discretionary findings regarding DNA testing orders receive near-total deference on appeal when they rest on credibility and demeanor.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies important limits on postconviction DNA testing relief in Texas. It establishes that convicted persons cannot use Article 64 to compel the State to investigate alternative suspects or collect evidence that was never in the State’s possession. The holding preserves the distinction between narrow postconviction DNA testing procedures and broader habeas corpus relief, ensuring that Chapter 64 motions cannot become a backdoor means to reopen investigations or introduce new defenses.
The opinion also reinforces strict preservation rules: appellants must raise constitutional objections at trial to preserve them for appeal. For criminal defendants considering postconviction DNA testing motions, the decision makes clear that requests must focus on physical evidence the State possessed during trial, not on biological material from third parties that could hypothetically explain the evidence.