Roger Dale Medford v. State, 02-15-00055-CR

Roger Dale Medford was convicted by a Tarrant County jury on August 15, 1996 of Injury to an Elderly Person — Serious Bodily Injury and sentenced to 40 years.
In 2010 Medford filed a post-conviction motion under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64 (Chapter 64) seeking DNA testing of multiple items from the crime scene and items seized from him.
The trial court ordered testing in December 2010 (hairs from the victim’s hand; a beer can) and additional testing in December 2012 (shoes, sweatpants, sweat top, handkerchief).
DPS testing (2011 & 2013) returned: multiple stains on Medford’s clothing and shoes consistent with the victim’s DNA; the handkerchief contained Medford’s DNA; several items showed mixtures or no interpretable profiles.
At a February 13, 2015 hearing the trial court made a “nonfavorable” finding under Article 64.04 (concluding the test results would not likely have led to a different outcome); Medford appealed that ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Medford)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the post-conviction DNA results are "favorable" under Art. 64.04	DNA results undermine confidence in conviction because they show mixtures, victim blood on Medford’s clothing could be explained by prior contact and testing does not confirm assault; therefore reasonably probable Medford would not have been convicted	Trial court found the DNA results do not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome (i.e., not favorable) given other evidence	Trial court entered a nonfavorable finding; Medford appeals that ruling
Whether Article 64.04’s "reasonable probability" standard is met	The DNA evidence, viewed with trial testimony (cohabitation, timing, limited direct linking), creates reasonable doubt sufficient to undermine confidence in verdict	State would argue the DNA evidence is consistent with guilt (blood of victim on defendant’s clothes, other investigative facts) and does not exculpate	Trial court applied Article 64.04 and found no reasonable probability; appellate review uses Guzman bifurcated standard

Baggett v. State, 110 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (describes standard of review and treatment of Article 64.04 findings)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (establishes deferential review for historical facts and de novo review for legal application)
Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (procedural authorities on post-conviction matters cited for review standard)
Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (explains what qualifies as a "favorable" DNA result under Chapter 64)
Johnson v. State, 183 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (discusses reasonable probability standard and examples where DNA results were insufficient)
Cate v. State, 326 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010) (addresses when post-conviction DNA evidence fails to change the jury’s earlier resolution)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (federal standard that new evidence must make it more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict)