Skinner, Henry Watkins
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 52
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Henry Skinner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- After conviction, parties agreed to postconviction DNA testing and filed an "Agreed Joint Order of the Parties for DNA Testing," which the trial court adopted and which authorized Chapter 64 testing.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed an earlier appeal as moot to allow the parties to pursue agreed testing in the trial court; later the trial court denied Skinner’s Chapter 64 motion and he appealed that denial to this Court.
- The joint filing did not include an affidavit sworn by Skinner as required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.01(a-1); the State did not object to the lack of verification because the filing was joint.
- Skinner later advised the Court that the Texas DPS crime lab might have errors in its DNA mixture analyses and statistical calculations (CPI/CPE) and that recalculation was requested but not yet provided.
- The Court concluded it had jurisdiction, treated the joint filing as a Chapter 64 motion despite the missing affidavit (a pleading defect, not jurisdictional), and abated the appeal to remand to the trial court to ensure timely recalculation and further findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "Agreed Joint Order of the Parties for DNA Testing" qualifies as a Chapter 64 motion | Skinner: the joint filing was intended as a Chapter 64 motion and the court treated it as such | State: agreed joint filing should proceed under Chapter 64 | Court: The substance controls; the joint filing is a Chapter 64 motion |
| Whether absence of a sworn affidavit (art. 64.01(a-1)) deprives the Court of jurisdiction | Skinner: procedural defect exists but parties intended testing; the State did not object | State: did not object; proceeded with testing | Court: Lack of affidavit is a pleading deficiency, not jurisdictional; non-fatal here because State did not object |
| Whether additional factfinding/recalculation is required based on potential DPS errors in mixture interpretation/statistics | Skinner: DPS notified possible errors; requested recalculation and timely results not provided | State: had requested recalculation via Attorney General but response was outstanding | Court: Further proceedings are necessary; remand to trial court to ensure recalculation and make findings |
| Proper procedures and timeline for recalculation and appeal reinstatement | Skinner: request recalculation and receive materials | State: recalculation may be performed by DPS or accredited lab per art. 64.03(c) | Court: Trial court to ensure recalculation within 90 days (subject to extensions from this Court); record to be returned for reinstatement of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Moss, 446 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (jurisdiction is a systemic requirement)
- State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Chapter 64 confers limited jurisdiction for postconviction DNA testing)
- Rouse v. State, 300 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (failure to verify can be pleading defect; objecting party protections)
- Druery v. State, 412 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (verification requirements treated as pleading matters; considerations when deficiency is fatal)
- Ex parte Golden, 991 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (oath/verification rules in postconviction context)
- Connor v. State, 877 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (motions for new trial verification principles)
- Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (construction of filings by substance rather than labels)