337 S.W.3d 883
Tex. Crim. App.2011Background
- Gutierrez was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the robbery and killing of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison.
- Evidence showed the murder occurred in Harrison’s home with money hidden on the premises; appellant knew of the money and was implicated by multiple statements.
- Appellant provided multiple statements: alibi initially, then admitted planning the robbery and later claiming he acted with accomplices inside the home.
- The State relied on physical evidence and accomplice testimony to prove identity and intent, leading to a conviction under the law of parties.
- Appellant sought post-conviction DNA testing under Article 64.01 and requested appointed counsel; the trial court denied both, which the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed under Chapter 64.(1)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel to file a DNA test motion | Gutierrez asserts reasonable grounds exist for testing | Gutierrez contends grounds exist for testing to prove innocence | No; court found no reasonable grounds for counsel appointment |
| Whether the DNA testing motion satisfied Chapter 64 prerequisites | Gutierrez argues identity was at issue and exculpatory results could help | State argues identity not at issue and testing would muddy the waters | No; identity not an issue and testing would not show innocence beyond doubt |
| Whether appellant was at fault for not pursuing testing at trial | Gutierrez claims lack of opportunity to test at trial | State asserts appellant had opportunity and counsel strategy chose not to test | No; trial strategy and availability found to justify no-fault conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (deference to factual findings; Chapter 64 standards discussed)
- Prible v. State, 245 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (tests when others’ DNA at scene; preponderance standard guidance)
- Kutzner v. State, 75 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (no-fault testing; scope of Chapter 64 preconditions)
- Blacklock v. State, 235 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (identity not at issue case where exculpatory evidence may arise)
- Routier v. State, 273 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (deference on historical facts; application of law to facts)
- Esparza v. State, 282 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (DNA testing considerations in multi-offender context)
- Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (almost total deference to trial court on historical facts; de novo on law/fact mix)