The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled against Ricky Lee Pady, who sought post-conviction DNA testing in connection with his 2007 murder conviction. The court's decision, issued on August 20, 2026, affirms a lower court's denial of Pady's request for retesting DNA evidence from the case. This ruling impacts Pady, who is currently serving a fifty-year sentence for the murder of Denise Ortman, and raises questions about the standards for post-conviction DNA testing in Texas.
Pady was convicted of murdering Denise Ortman in 2007 and sentenced to fifty years in prison. The case revolved around DNA evidence collected from Ortman's vehicle and the crime scene. In April 2025, Pady filed a motion requesting retesting of this DNA evidence, claiming advancements in DNA testing techniques could yield exculpatory results. Pady argued that the trial court failed to apply the necessary statutory presumption that new testing could show evidence favorable to him.
The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) had previously tested multiple items related to the case, including blood samples and oral swabs from suspects. The lab report indicated that DNA from Ortman matched several items, while DNA from Pady and another suspect, Rex Frautschi, matched other evidence. Pady's motion for retesting included a request for newer testing methods, such as STR and Y-STR testing, which he believed could provide more accurate results.
The trial court held a hearing on Pady's motion and ultimately denied it, stating that there was no evidence of significant advancements in DNA testing techniques that would make previous results questionable. The court ruled that Pady had not met the burden of proof required under Texas law, which mandates that a convicted person must demonstrate that the evidence can be subjected to newer testing methods that are more accurate than prior tests.
The Texas Court of Appeals, comprising Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca, upheld the trial court's decision. In their ruling, the court stated, "Appellant failed to show the evidence previously subjected to DNA testing can be subjected to testing with newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more accurate and probative than the results of the previous test." The court emphasized that Pady did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims regarding the potential for exculpatory results.
This ruling is significant for Pady and others seeking post-conviction DNA testing in Texas. It underscores the importance of demonstrating that new testing methods could yield different results before a court will grant retesting. The court's decision may also set a precedent for future cases involving similar requests for DNA testing, emphasizing the need for a clear connection between new testing techniques and the potential for exoneration.
The ruling affects not only Pady but also others who may find themselves in similar situations where they believe advancements in forensic science could prove their innocence. The court's decision reinforces the challenges faced by convicted individuals seeking to challenge their convictions based on new scientific evidence.
Looking ahead, Pady may have limited options for appealing this decision. The Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court's ruling, which typically concludes the appellate process unless new evidence emerges or other legal grounds for appeal are identified. There are currently no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.