Catarino Mireles Rodriguez, Sr. v. State
11-14-00217-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 18, 2016Background
- Rodriguez was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 and received 50 years’ imprisonment; this Court affirmed his conviction in 2000.
- Facts at trial: Rodriguez was caught in the act by the victim’s brother, who chased and apprehended him; Rodriguez was known to the victim’s family.
- In 2014 Rodriguez filed a postconviction motion under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 64, seeking DNA testing of biological material on his shorts and the victim to prove actual innocence.
- The State responded that DNA testing was unnecessary because identity was not disputed at trial and attached the prior appellate opinion.
- The trial court denied the motion in a written order without holding a hearing and without making written findings on the motion.
- Rodriguez appealed, arguing the trial court erred procedurally (no hearing, no written findings) and substantively (should have granted DNA testing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rodriguez) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to hold a hearing on the Chapter 64 motion | Trial court erred by denying motion without a hearing | Chapter 64 does not require a hearing | No hearing required; no procedural error |
| Whether the trial court was required to make written findings when denying the motion | Trial court erred by not making written findings | Chapter 64 does not require written findings; identity was not at issue | No written findings required; DNA testing denied because identity was not at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Swearingen, 478 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (sets Chapter 64 testing requirements)
- Whitaker v. State, 160 S.W.3d 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (holding no hearing is required under Chapter 64)
- Dixon v. State, 242 S.W.3d 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (holding written findings are not required when denying Chapter 64 relief)
- Prible v. State, 245 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (explaining identity requirement for DNA testing)
- Routier v. State, 273 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (defendant must show by preponderance that exculpatory DNA would have prevented conviction)
- Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard of review on probability that DNA results would show innocence)
- Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (clarifies that testing must show, by preponderance, that defendant did not commit crime)