Where a defendant in a statutory-rape and sodomy case challenged the denial of his post-conviction motion for DNA testing, the judgment is affirmed because the defendant did not plead that the technology for the testing was not reasonably available at the time of his trial, or that he or his trial counsel was unaware of the existence of the evidence at the time, and the motion court, which properly found that DNA testing already had been conducted in the case, did not clearly err in concluding that the trial transcript and evidence at trial showed that the defendant was not entitled to additional DNA testimony because it would not result in the development of exculpatory evidence.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Cox (MLW No. 72263/Case No. WD80797 – 19 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Pfeiffer, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Buchanan County, Robb, J. (Joshua D. Hawley and Karen L. Kramer, for respondent) (Lewis Shawn Cox, pro se).