A Texas court has ruled against a request for DNA testing from Charles Lee Levan Jr., who was convicted of murder more than 20 years ago. The Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District, issued its decision on July 23, 2026, affirming the trial court's denial of Levan's motion for post-conviction DNA testing. This ruling impacts Levan's efforts to prove his innocence and raises questions about the reliability of evidence in long-standing criminal cases.
Levan was convicted of murder in 2002 and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His case has been under scrutiny due to his claims that DNA testing could prove the shooting was accidental. The court's decision means he will not have the opportunity to test the evidence he believes could exonerate him.
The case began when Levan and the victim, who had a troubled relationship, were involved in a shooting incident that resulted in her death. A protective order had been issued against Levan prior to the shooting. Evidence presented during the trial indicated that Levan had given the victim a .38 caliber revolver and had shown her how to use it. The circumstances of the shooting were disputed, with Levan claiming it was an accident.
During the trial, Levan testified that he had gone to the victim's house and an argument ensued. He claimed he retrieved the revolver with the intent of leaving but that it accidentally discharged when the victim tried to grab it. However, a fellow inmate testified that Levan had admitted to intentionally firing the gun to scare the victim. This conflicting testimony played a significant role in the jury's decision to convict Levan.
After serving over two decades in prison, Levan filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This chapter allows convicted individuals to request testing of biological evidence if certain conditions are met. Levan's motion sought to test the revolver, swabs taken from it, and other related evidence, asserting that the results could demonstrate the shooting was accidental.
The trial court denied Levan's request, leading him to appeal the decision. The Texas Court of Appeals reviewed the denial and ultimately upheld the trial court's ruling. The court found that Levan had not met the necessary legal requirements to warrant DNA testing. Specifically, they noted that identity was not a disputed issue in the case, as Levan admitted to being involved in the shooting.
The court stated, "Because Appellant has admitted to facts that identify him as a person who was involved in the shooting, the motion fails to raise a question concerning the identity of the shooter, as required by Article 64.03." This statement highlights the court's reasoning that DNA testing would not change the outcome of the case, as Levan did not deny his presence at the scene.
Furthermore, the court ruled that Levan did not demonstrate that exculpatory results from DNA testing would have led to a different verdict. The court emphasized that the presence of another person's DNA on the revolver would not necessarily exonerate Levan, as both he and the victim had handled the weapon prior to the shooting.
The ruling has significant implications for Levan and others in similar situations. It reinforces the challenges faced by individuals seeking post-conviction DNA testing, particularly when identity is not a disputed issue. The court's decision also underscores the importance of meeting specific legal requirements to obtain such testing.
Looking ahead, Levan's options appear limited. The court's ruling is final, and there is no indication that he can appeal this decision further. His case serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding post-conviction relief and the hurdles that individuals must overcome to prove their innocence.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential future actions by Levan. However, this ruling may have broader implications for the legal community and those advocating for criminal justice reform, particularly in cases involving long-term convictions and the use of DNA evidence.