The Texas Court of Appeals recently upheld a trial court's decision regarding DNA testing in the case of David Bryan Winters v. The State of Texas, docket number 11-25-00039-CR. The ruling affects Winters, who was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a young child in 2016 and is currently serving a thirty-year sentence. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the limitations of DNA testing requests under Texas law, particularly in post-conviction scenarios.
Winters, representing himself, appealed the trial court's order from a Chapter 64 proceeding. He argued that his due process rights were violated because the trial court did not order DNA testing on evidence related to his biological son. He also claimed he was not provided with a copy of the DNA testing results and laboratory files. The appeals court, however, affirmed the trial court's ruling, stating that Winters did not preserve his constitutional arguments for review.
The parties involved in this case are David Bryan Winters, the appellant, and the State of Texas, the appellee. Winters was convicted in 2016 of sexually abusing a child and sentenced to thirty years in prison. He initially waived his right to appeal, which led to the dismissal of his direct appeal. In 2023, Winters filed a post-conviction motion requesting additional DNA testing, asserting that DNA from his biological son could exonerate him. The motion was supported by a declaration from his son, who claimed he had been in the same bedroom as the victim.
The trial court granted Winters' request for DNA testing on certain evidence, including a piece of carpet and swabs taken from Winters. However, the court did not allow testing on his son's DNA, as it was not in the State's possession during the trial. After the testing was conducted, the trial court held a hearing where it was confirmed that the results could not distinguish between Winters and his son. Ultimately, the trial court denied all relief requested by Winters.
The Texas Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's ruling and found that Winters did not preserve his due process claims for appellate review. The court noted that to preserve an issue for appeal, a party must raise it in the trial court, which Winters failed to do. The court stated, "Appellant did not request in his motion that his biological son’s DNA be tested, nor did he... assert any due process claim." This lack of preservation meant that the appellate court could not consider his arguments.
The court also clarified that there is no substantive due process right to post-conviction DNA testing under Texas law. The appellate judges emphasized that the trial court was not required to order DNA testing for evidence that was not in the State's possession during the trial. The court ruled that the trial court did not err in failing to order testing of Winters' son's DNA, as it was outside the scope of what is permitted under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
As for Winters' claim regarding the failure to provide him with the DNA testing results, the court found that the results were indeed provided to his attorney during the hearing. The court stated that it could not determine whether the trial court had failed to comply with Article 64.03(d)(3) because the record did not clarify whether the testing agency was under contract with the Department of Public Safety. However, since the results were presented to Winters' counsel, the court concluded that his complaint was unfounded.
The ruling has implications for future cases involving DNA testing requests in Texas. It reinforces the importance of following procedural rules and preserving issues for appellate review. The decision also clarifies the limitations on what evidence can be tested under Chapter 64, particularly regarding evidence not in the State's possession during the trial. This ruling may impact other defendants seeking post-conviction relief through DNA testing, as it sets a precedent for how courts interpret the scope of Chapter 64.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether Winters will pursue further legal action. The court's ruling can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but details about any related cases or future motions were not available in the court filing. For now, the Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court's order, leaving Winters' conviction intact.