Phillip Ford v. State
08-14-00211-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- In 2011 Phillip Ford was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a sword) and sentenced to 25 years; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- In August 2013 Ford filed a post‑conviction motion under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ch. 64 requesting DNA testing (implicitly of the sword); the motion was supported only by Ford’s affidavit with general, conclusory statements.
- The State responded with trial-record excerpts and argued the sword either was not suitable for DNA testing or that identity was not an issue because witnesses (including the victim) identified Ford and Ford admitted involvement and claimed self‑defense.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding (inter alia) that identity was not an issue, no evidence suitable for DNA testing existed, and testing the sword would not prove innocence because Ford’s defense was self‑defense.
- On appeal Ford argued the trial court abused its discretion by refusing DNA testing, principally contesting the court’s conclusion that identity was not an issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ford met ch. 64 requirements for DNA testing | Ford: motion/affidavit asserted biological evidence existed, testing would likely exonerate him, and identity was at issue | State: Ford’s affidavit was conclusory; record shows witnesses identified Ford, he admitted use of the sword and asserted self‑defense; no proof sword contains DNA | Denied — Ford failed to show a reasonable likelihood of biological material and failed to show identity was an issue |
| Whether identity was an issue under art. 64.03(a)(2)(A) | Ford: identification could be controverted and testing could be exculpatory | State: multiple witnesses and Ford’s own statements established he was the attacker; issue at trial was self‑defense, not identity | Identity was not an issue because Ford admitted involvement and pressed self‑defense |
| Whether Ford provided factual/scientific support that the sword likely contained DNA | Ford: asserted generally that evidence contained biological material | State: no expert or scientific evidence showing touch DNA would be present or recoverable from the sword | Court: conclusory claims insufficient; Ford failed to meet burden for likelihood of recoverable DNA |
| Whether Blacklock/Esparza control to require testing despite identifications | Ford: relied on sexual‑assault precedents where DNA could exclude defendant despite ID | State: those cases involved biological material from victims (high likelihood of assailant DNA) and differing facts | Court: Blacklock/Esparza distinguishable (sexual‑assault context); those precedents do not mandate testing here |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. State, 84 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (movant bears burden to plead facts supporting DNA testing)
- Swearingen v. State, 303 S.W.3d 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (conclusory assertions insufficient to invoke chapter 64 relief)
- Blacklock v. State, 235 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (DNA can be dispositive even when victim identifies defendant in sexual‑assault cases)
- Esparza v. State, 282 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (sexual‑assault context where lack of scientific proof by State defeated its contrary theory)