MURPHY, JEDIDIAH ISAAC v. the State of Texas

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. AP-77,112

JEDIDIAH ISAAC MURPHY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF MOTION FOR
FORENSIC DNA TESTING IN CAUSE NO. F00-02424-M
FROM THE 194TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION

Appellant appeals from a trial court order denying his motion for post-conviction

DNA testing filed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 64.1 Appellant

raises two points of error. After reviewing the issues, we find Appellant’s points of error

to be without merit. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s order denying testing.

1
References to Chapters or Articles in this opinion are to the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure unless otherwise specified.
Murphy - 2

I. Background

Appellant was convicted in June 2001 for the capital murder of 80-year-old Bertie

Cunningham. See TEX. PENAL CODE §19.03(a). The evidence showed that on October 4,

2000, Cunningham went shopping at a mall in Plano, Texas. She was returning to her

Garland home when Appellant forced her at gunpoint to give him a ride. Ultimately,

Appellant forced Cunningham into the trunk of her car and shot her. Appellant then

drove Cunningham’s car around and used her credit cards to buy alcohol and beer, among

other things. At some point, he picked up his niece and two of her school-age friends.

He later dropped off his niece, and he and the boys continued driving around. Ultimately,

he bought them both motorized scooters before taking them home. He eventually

removed Cunningham from the trunk and dumped her in a creek.

As set out in Appellant’s motion for DNA testing, the State presented evidence at

the punishment phase showing that he engaged in a number of acts of violence and

thievery prior to committing the instant offense. This included evidence that:

• In 1993, after leaving a high school graduation party with a girl, Appellant parked
the vehicle, pulled out a gun, put it to the girl’s head, and asked her if she was
afraid to die.

• In 1994, Appellant stole cash and checks from a friend’s safe. He was convicted
and placed on probation for burglary of a habitation.

• Also in 1994, Appellant stole property from a car. He was convicted and placed
on probation for burglary of a motor vehicle.

• In 1995, Appellant helped commit auto theft, for which he was ultimately placed
on probation.
Murphy - 3

• In 1997, Appellant assaulted his girlfriend, Chelsea Willis, and one of her friends.
Specifically, he pulled a knife on Willis and broke her nose.

• Around the time that Appellant assaulted Willis, he also carjacked Sherryl
Wilhelm in Arlington. Wilhelm testified that the carjacker forced her into her car,
choked her, and made her get on the floor before he drove away. Wilhelm escaped
from her kidnapper by jumping out of the car on the highway. Wilhelm’s car was
found abandoned on the side of a highway in Wichita Falls the day after the
carjacking. Wilhelm helped the police create a composite sketch of her captor, but
the case went cold until 2000 when Wilhelm saw Appellant’s picture on television
as a suspect in Cunningham’s murder. When Wilhelm saw Appellant’s picture,
she contacted the police. She later identified Appellant in a photo lineup.

• Also in 1997, a man attacked 69-year-old Marjorie Ellis in Wichita Falls and stole
her purse. The authorities found property belonging to Ellis in Wilhelm’s
abandoned car.

• In 2000, Appellant threatened to kill a woman who was trying to help him learn a
trade, and he bragged to her about all the different weapons he had access to.

In addition, psychiatrist Jaye Crowder testified that Appellant was chronically depressed,

alcohol dependent, narcissistic, and had borderline personality disorder with anti-social

features.

After hearing this evidence, the jury answered the punishment questions in a

manner requiring the trial court to sentence Appellant to death. This Court affirmed the

judgment and sentence on direct appeal. Murphy v. State, 112 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2003). This Court also denied relief on the claims raised in Appellant’s initial

habeas application and dismissed his subsequent application as an abuse of the writ. Ex

parte Murphy, No. WR-70,832-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2009) (not designated for

publication); Ex parte Murphy, No. WR-70,832-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 21, 2012) (not
Murphy - 4

designated for publication).

II. Chapter 64 and the Standard of Review

As we have previously stated, “There is no free-standing due-process right to DNA

testing, and the task of fashioning rules to ‘harness DNA’s power to prove innocence

without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice’ belongs

‘primarily to the legislature.’” Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883, 889 (Tex. Crim. App.

2011) (quoting District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 62 (2009)); see also Ex

parte Mines, 26 S.W.3d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (stating that there is no

constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing). The Texas Legislature created a

process for such testing in Chapter 64.

Article 64.01, titled “Motion,” defines “biological material” and states that “[a]

convicted person may submit to the convicting court a motion for forensic DNA testing of

evidence that has a reasonable likelihood of containing biological material.” Art.

64.01(a-1). The statute further provides that “[t]he motion may request forensic DNA

testing only of evidence described by Subsection (a-1) that was secured in relation to the

offense that is the basis of the challenged conviction and was in the possession of the

state during the trial of the offense[.]” Art. 63.01(b). The convicting court may order

DNA testing under Chapter 64 only if the court finds that: (1) the evidence still exists

and is in a testable condition; (2) the evidence has been subjected to a sufficient chain of

custody; (3) the evidence is reasonably likely to contain biological material suitable for
Murphy - 5

DNA testing; and (4) identity is an issue in the case. Art. 64.03(a)(1). Additionally, the

convicted person must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that:

1. he “would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained
through DNA testing; and”

2. “the request for the proposed DNA testing is not made to unreasonably
delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice.”

Art. 64.03(a)(2).

In reviewing a judge’s ruling on a Chapter 64 motion, this Court gives almost total

deference to the judge’s resolution of historical fact issues supported by the record and

applications-of-law-to-fact issues turning on witness credibility and demeanor. Reed v.

State, 541 S.W.3d 759, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). But we consider de novo all other

application-of-law-to-fact questions. Id. at 768-69.

III. The Current Chapter 64 Motion and the Trial Court’s Ruling

In mid-February 2023, the State moved the trial court to set Appellant’s execution

date. On March 24, Appellant filed in the trial court his Chapter 64 motion for DNA

testing. In the motion, he requested testing of:

any and all evidence collected in the Wilhelm/Ellis robberies, including, but
not limited to, any receipts, checkbooks, or paperwork recovered in these
offenses. This evidence contains biological material that was secured in
relation to the offense that is the basis of the challenged conviction and was
in the possession of the state during the trial of the offense.

Appellant asserts that if exculpatory results are obtained from the evidence collected in

the Wilhelm/Ellis robberies, “there is no doubt that the punishment assessed would have
Murphy - 6

been different.”

The trial judge denied the request in a written order which stated in its entirety:

Before the Court is [Appellant’s] Motion for Post-Conviction
Forensic DNA Testing under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The Court finds that [Appellant’s] request fails as a matter of
law because he seeks to test only punishment-related evidence. The Court
further finds that [Appellant] has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that his motion is not filed for purposes of delaying execution of
sentence or the administration of justice. Accordingly, [Appellant’s]
motion is hereby DENIED.

The court made no other explicit findings of fact or conclusions of law.

IV. Appellant’s Arguments on Appeal and the Court’s Analysis

In his first point of error, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in finding that

he is not entitled “as a matter of law” to the testing of evidence that relates only to

punishment. Appellant recognizes that prior case law has stated that Chapter 64 DNA

testing is not available for punishment only evidence, but he argues that this holding

should be reexamined in light of the 2003 statutory amendments to Chapter 64.

Specifically, Appellant asserts that the amendments deleted language requiring a

defendant to show that he would not have been “prosecuted” if exculpatory results had

been obtained. Now, he says, the statute requires only that a defendant show that he

would not have been “convicted.” He further argues that, given Texas’ bifurcated system,

“convicted” should be interpreted to encompass both the judgment of guilt and the

assessment of punishment.

We disagree. In an earlier version of Article 64.03(a)(2)(A), the statute required a
Murphy - 7

person seeking DNA testing to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he would

not have been “prosecuted or convicted” should exculpatory DNA results be obtained. In

Kutzner v. State, 75 S.W.3d 427, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), we held that this phrase

was subject to different meanings and, thus, was ambiguous. We hypothesized that (1) it

could be interpreted to require a convicted person to prove his innocence, or (2) it could

be interpreted to require a convicted person to show that “favorable DNA results would

result in a different outcome unrelated to the convicted person’s guilt/innocence.” Id. at

437. Looking at legislative history, we determined that the Legislature clearly intended

the language to mean the former—that a convicted person seeking DNA testing must

show a reasonable probability that exculpatory testing would show his innocence. Id. at

439.

The Legislature thereafter amended Chapter 64 in response to our holding in

Kutzner. It made clear that a defendant must: (1) meet just a preponderance of the

evidence standard for showing innocence, and (2) show only that he would not have been

convicted. See Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361, 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also

Wilson v. State, 185 S.W.3d 481, 491 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In 2011, this Court

expressly stated that Chapter 64 “does not authorize testing when exculpatory testing

results might affect only the punishment or sentence that [a defendant] received.”

Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d at 901. This holding is aligned with our interpretation of the

Chapter 64 language in Kutzner and the Legislature’s later amendments of the statutory
Murphy - 8

language at issue in Kutzner. Appellant also urges this Court to consider his assertion that

“convicted” should be interpreted to encompass both the judgment of guilt and the

assessment of punishment, but the analysis in Kutzner and the Legislature’s later

amendments of the statute reject this interpretation. See also Ex parte White, 506 S.W.3d

39, 42-43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (comparing identical “would not have been convicted”

phrase in Article 11.073(b)(2) with that in Article 64.03(a)(2)(A) and rejecting idea that

“convicted” encompasses more than a finding of guilt).

Further, there is other language in Chapter 64 that supports the trial court’s

finding. For example, Article 64.01(a-1) states that, “[a] convicted person may submit to

the convicting court a motion for forensic DNA testing of evidence that has a reasonable

likelihood of containing biological material.” Appellant was not convicted of the

Wilhelm or Ellis robberies. In fact, he was never brought to trial for them. The

convicting court for the capital murder is not necessarily the convicting court for the

robberies. Appellant twists the statutory language by suggesting otherwise.

Additionally, Article 64.01(b) says that, “[t]he [Chapter 64 DNA] motion may

request forensic DNA testing only of evidence described by Subsection (a-1) that was

secured in relation to the offense that is the basis of the challenged conviction and was in

the possession of the state during the trial of the offense[.]” (Emphasis added.) In this

appeal, the “challenged conviction” is the capital murder conviction. The Wilhelm/Ellis

evidence, which was secured three years before the capital murder was committed, was
Murphy - 9

clearly not secured in relation to the capital murder offense. Appellant’s attempt to argue

that evidence of extraneous acts is “secured in relation to” the capital murder on trial is

misguided.

Given prior precedent and the statutory language, we conclude that the trial court

did not err in determining that Appellant’s request for DNA testing under Chapter 64

failed “as a matter of law.” We overrule Appellant’s first point of error.

In his second point of error, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in finding

that he had not shown that his DNA testing motion was not filed “for the purposes of

unreasonably delaying execution of sentence or the administration of justice.” Appellant

notes that Chapter 64 contains no deadline for the filing of a motion. He also points out

that the statute requires a person to show that the request for testing is not made to

unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or the administration of justice. Further, he

comments that Chapter 64 does not require a movant to explain why he did not raise a

claim earlier. Appellant emphasizes that he “filed his Chapter 64 request on March 24,

2023, before his execution date had even been scheduled.” Finally, Appellant cites to

Thacker v. State, 177 S.W.3d 926, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), and Brown v. State, No.

AP-75,469 (Tex. Crim. App. July 19, 2006) (not designated for publication), for the

proposition that a motion for DNA testing filed less than a month before an execution

setting supports a trial court finding that the filing of the motion was made to

unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or the administration of justice. Whereas
Murphy - 10

his motion, he notes, was filed before his execution date had even been scheduled.

Appellant’s argument is disingenuous. Appellant was convicted of capital murder

in 2001. He challenged the use of the Wilhelm and Ellis offenses on direct appeal and in

habeas applications. Chapter 64, authorizing motions for DNA testing, has been in effect

since April 2001. See Thacker, 177 S.W.3d at 927. But Appellant waited until after the

State filed a motion to set an execution date before he filed for DNA testing.2 We

recognize that Appellant filed his motion for DNA testing before his execution was

scheduled, but that is only because the court set a later hearing on the State’s motion to

set a date. And, although Appellant has had 22 years since his capital murder conviction,

and DNA testing has been scientifically possible throughout that time, Appellant did not

move for DNA testing until March 2023, when it appeared that the setting of an execution

date was imminent. See Reed v. State, 541 S.W.3d 759, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017)

(noting that circumstances surrounding the request may be considered, including: the

promptness of the request, the temporal proximity between the request and the sentence’s

execution, and the ability to request the testing earlier). Under the facts in this case, we

hold that the record supports the trial court’s finding of unreasonable delay. We overrule

Appellant’s second point of error.

Finding no reversible error in the proceedings below, we affirm the trial court’s

2
The State filed a motion on February 14, 2023, to set an October execution date.
Appellant filed his motion in March 2023 for DNA testing, and the court held a hearing on both
matters in April 2023, thereafter setting an execution date.
Murphy - 11

order denying the motion for forensic DNA testing pursuant to Texas Code Criminal

Procedure Chapter 64.

Delivered: September 26, 2023
Do Not Publish