David Matthew Layton v. State ( 2005 )

NO. 07-03-0383-CR
NO. 07-03-0384-CR
NO. 07-03-0385-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
FEBRUARY 24, 2005
______________________________
DAVID MATTHEW LAYTON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 34,435-C, 34,436-C, 34,437-C; HONORABLE PATRICK PIRTLE, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1
In these companion cases, appellant David Matthew Layton was convicted of
aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault of a child. We affirmed the trial court
conviction in each case. See Layton v. State, No. 07-96-0234-CR, 1997 Lexis 5257 (Tex.
App.–Amarillo Oct. 3, 1997, pet. ref’d); Layton v. State, No. O7-96-O235-CR, 1997 Lexis
1
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005).
5258 (Tex. App.–Amarillo Oct. 3, 1997, pet. ref’d); and Layton v State, No. 07-96-0236-CR,
1997 Lexis 5259 (Tex. App.–Amarillo Oct. 3, 1997, pet. ref’d). Appellant now asserts that
the trial court reversibly erred in denying his motions for post-conviction forensic DNA
testing. For the reasons set out below, we disagree the trial court erred, and we affirm the
trial court’s denial of those motions.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 64.03(a)(2)(A) provides that a trial court
may only order forensic DNA testing if the convicted person establishes by a
preponderance of the evidence that the person would not have been convicted if
exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing. Tex. Code Crim Proc. Ann.
art 64.03(a)(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). In advancing his contention that his motions
should have been granted, appellant, for the most part, again challenges in some detail the
legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. In addition, he
specifically argues that the victims never made a firm identification of him as the culprit and
emphasizes that the State’s evidence shows he arrived at the scene of the crimes just after
the commission of the crimes.
However, the evidence in these cases was reviewed in somewhat exhaustive detail
in our opinions affirming the convictions, and appellant has not presented any contentions
here that were not within the bounds of our prior discussion of the sufficiency of the trial
evidence. Because of the nature of the evidence sustaining appellant’s conviction,
appellant has not borne his burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he
would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained
through DNA testing.
2
Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of appellant’s amended motions for DNA testing
of evidence must be, and are hereby, affirmed in each case.
John T. Boyd
Senior Justice
Do not publish.
3