Villanueva, Robert, WR-81,669-02

Robert Villanueva, a Texas prisoner (TDCJ #1662449), seeks leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus and moves under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.073 for forensic DNA testing of evidence from his 2010 conviction (Cause No. 08-CR-3051).
Villanueva alleges key physical evidence (a glass crack pipe and hair found in the victim’s right hand) was not submitted for DNA testing and that the trial lab did not receive or test those items.
Trial prosecutor reportedly suggested at trial that the untested hair matched Villanueva’s hair color, which Villanueva says prejudiced the jury in absence of testing.
Post-conviction, co-counsel Holly Cooper-Roell provided an affidavit saying a codefendant’s attorney (Cochran) told her the prosecutor “secreted” evidence and that Cooper-Roell has more to disclose; Villanueva contends this is newly discovered Brady material.
A November 21, 2009 video confession by codefendant Marcus Shuff (admitting sole responsibility) was withheld from Villanueva’s jury but later used in a separate prosecution; Villanueva argues its exclusion and the inability to confront the lead detective violated his confrontation and due-process rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to DNA testing under Art. 11.073	Villanueva: untested hair/pipe, DNA could exonerate him; testing should be ordered	State: (not in record) trial court has discretion; may assert no entitlement without showing likely exculpatory result	No final ruling in this record; Villanueva seeks mandamus because trial court had not acted on his motion
Appointment of counsel for DNA testing	Villanueva: indigent, needs counsel to pursue testing under art. 11.073(1)(d)	State: (not in record) may oppose if statutory criteria not met	Application requests appointment; trial court had not ruled; mandamus sought to compel action
Brady / nondisclosure of evidence (secreted evidence)	Villanueva: prosecutor withheld material exculpatory information (affidavit from Cooper‑Roell) that could have changed trial outcome	State: (not presented here) would likely dispute materiality or timing of disclosure	No adjudication in this filing; Villanueva alleges Brady violation and asks court to order relief/testing
Confrontation / exclusion of codefendant confession	Villanueva: exclusion of Shuff’s video confession and denial to confront detective denied his right to present a complete defense	State: (not in record) likely argued hearsay/third‑party confession exclusion or trial evidentiary rulings	Record shows Villanueva claims violation; later use of the video in another prosecution cited as support, but no ruling documented here

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence material to guilt or punishment)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for undisclosed evidence)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (Brady/Bagley discussions on materiality and disclosure)
Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895) (foundations of confrontation and right to present a defense)
Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 (1970) (importance of confrontation for truth‑finding)
Kutzner v. State, 75 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (right to DNA testing tied to possibility that exculpatory results would establish innocence)
Blacklock v. State, 235 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discussion of standards for post‑conviction testing requests)
Kittleson v. Dretke, 426 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2005) (confrontation and due‑process issues in excluding evidence)