James v. State

OPINION

Opinion by

Chief Justice MORRISS.

Darren Keith James’ motion for post-conviction forensic DNA testing, see Tex. Code Ceim. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01 (Vernon Supp.2005), did not allege the existence of any biological material that could be subjected to DNA testing, but merely stated that James’ accuser was examined by a doctor at the time the accusation was made. The trial court denied the motion because it failed to specify what evidence James wished to have tested for DNA.

James’ sole issue on appeal concerns whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for testing without first…