Gerald Sherard v. the State of Texas

No. 02-20-00083-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 13, 2021) · Court of Appeals of Texas, Second Appellate District at Fort Worth · May 13, 2021 · No. No. 02-20-00083-CR

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Second District, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court’s finding that postconviction DNA testing did not create a reasonable probability that Gerald Sherard would not have been convicted. The court held that any delay in conducting the required DNA hearing was harmless, that Sherard failed to preserve his claim that the State withheld exculpatory evidence, and that the DNA results did not cast affirmative doubt on his conviction. The court declined to consider post-hearing evidence not presented to the trial court.

Holdings

  1. Assuming without deciding that the trial court erred by not holding the article 64.04 hearing closer to the issuance of the June 2014 DNA report, the error was harmless because it did not affect Sherard's substantial rights.
  2. Sherard failed to preserve his complaint that the State withheld the June 2014 DNA report because he did not raise the complaint in the trial court.
  3. The trial court did not err in finding that the DNA testing did not create a reasonable probability that Sherard would not have been convicted.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred by failing to hold an article 64.04 hearing closer in time to the issuance of the June 2014 DNA report.
  2. Whether the State's alleged failure to timely disclose the June 2014 DNA report constituted a Brady violation or other reversible error.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the DNA testing did not create a reasonable probability that Sherard would not have been convicted.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (15)

  • Jones v. State, 161 S.W.3d 685, 690 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref'd)(followed)
  • Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)(followed)
  • Dunning v. State, 572 S.W.3d 685, 692-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019)(followed)
  • Johnson v. State, 72 S.W.3d 346, 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)(followed)
  • Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)(followed)
  • Asberry v. State, 507 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)(followed)
  • Clarke v. State, 270 S.W.3d 573, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)(followed)
  • Wilson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 136, 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)(followed)
  • In re A.C., 48 S.W.3d 899, 905 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied)(followed)
  • Douds v. State, 472 S.W.3d 670, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 15.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…