Christopher David Ryan v. State
08-14-00167-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Aug 12, 2015Background
- Christopher David Ryan was convicted of possession of a controlled substance; conviction had been previously affirmed on appeal.
- Ryan sought post-conviction DNA testing of a jar seized from his semi-truck trailer that allegedly contained "meth oil."
- The trial court denied the motion after finding the jar was lost or destroyed and thus unavailable for testing.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous and moved to withdraw; the motion to withdraw was granted.
- Ryan filed a pro se brief arguing loss/destruction of the jar deprived him of potential fingerprint/DNA evidence and violated due process by preventing proof of actual innocence.
- The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review and affirmed the trial court, finding no arguable grounds for appeal under the narrow scope of Texas's post-conviction DNA-testing statute (Art. 64).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of DNA testing violated due process by preventing proof of innocence | Ryan: loss/destruction of the jar denied access to potential DNA/fingerprint evidence needed to show actual innocence | State/Trial Court: jar is lost/destroyed and thus not subject to Article 64 testing; Article 64 has a limited scope that does not encompass all claims | Court: Affirmed — no reversible error; appeal frivolous given Article 64’s limited scope and lack of arguable grounds |
| Whether appellate counsel properly moved to withdraw under Anders | Ryan: (raised pro se issues after Anders brief) | Appellate counsel: conducted review, concluded appeal frivolous, provided materials to Ryan, moved to withdraw | Court: Anders procedure satisfied; counsel allowed to withdraw; independent review found no meritorious issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Sup. Ct.) (appointed counsel may withdraw if appeal is frivolous and court is informed of basis)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.) (adopting Anders procedure in Texas)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedural guidance on Anders practice)
- Lopez v. State, 114 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi) (distinguishing Article 64’s limited scope from broader post-conviction habeas relief)
- In re Morton, 326 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. App.—Austin) (holding fingerprint evidence does not fall within Article 64’s ambit)
- Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App.) (duty of appointed counsel to inform defendant of appellate results and discretionary review rights)