John Daniel Brooks v. State, 01-15-00062-CR

John Daniel Brooks was convicted of attempted capital murder in 1981; sentence 99 years; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Over 30 years later Brooks moved for post-conviction DNA testing under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ch. 64, seeking testing of the complainant’s fingernail scrapings (knife evidence destroyed).
Trial court appointed counsel Kelly Ann Smith to represent Brooks in the Chapter 64 proceeding; after investigation Smith moved to withdraw, concluding DNA testing would not be exculpatory given the record.
Key inculpatory evidence: complainant identified Brooks (gave name/address), identified him from a photo lineup, and Brooks’s palm/fingerprints in blood were found at the scene; no evidence complainant scratched her attacker.
Trial court denied the motion for DNA testing (found identity not an issue and exculpatory results would not have prevented conviction) and granted Smith’s withdrawal; Brooks appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying post-conviction DNA testing under art. 64	Brooks: Exculpatory DNA from fingernail scrapings excluding him would create reasonable doubt about the attacker’s identity and likely change the verdict	State: Identity was not genuinely contested; even exclusionary DNA would not overcome strong non-DNA evidence (ID, fingerprints in blood)	Denial affirmed — excluded/negative DNA would at best “muddy the waters” and would not, by preponderance, show Brooks would not have been convicted
Whether Brooks received ineffective assistance of counsel in the Chapter 64 proceeding	Brooks: Appointed counsel was ineffective for failing to file the affidavits/documents she reviewed to support the DNA motion	State: Even if counsel erred, Brooks cannot show prejudice because he does not identify missing evidence that would make identity an issue or show exculpatory DNA would have exonerated him	Claim rejected — assuming such a claim is cognizable, Brooks failed Strickland prejudice prong; no showing the omitted material would have altered the result

Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (favorable fingernail DNA that points to a third party will not justify testing where it would not overcome overwhelming non-DNA evidence)
Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (framework for when DNA testing may be ordered under art. 64)
Blacklock v. State, 235 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reversal where movant showed victim’s lone attacker would be donor of tested material, making exculpatory DNA dispositive)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (discussing ineffective-assistance analysis for counsel in post-conviction proceedings)