We've got a guy who has filed his 2nd post conviction motion for DNA testing.

In his first motion, about 3 years ago, the Trial Court found that there was nothing with bio material to test for dna and identity was never an issue. (Def lived with victim for 8 years. Def caught literally with his pants down right after assualting victim.)

This is his second motion. He doesn't state that the technology has changed, so that there would be some new way to determine if there's any DNA.

This has already been litigated. The Trial Court denied the subsequent motion.

He appealed this 2nd denial (as he did the first.)

There's nothing new.

I know that under BAKER subsequent motions are not barred.

But is there anything at all to stop this guy from filing exactly the same thing a hunderd times?

At what point is it an abuse of the process?

I'm not saying that if there was new technology that he shouldn't get another chance. (Well, maybe I am in this case since identity isn't an issue.) But, in general I'm not opposed to subsequent filings if there's something new. But what about when there's nothing new?

There has been a bill filed that would forfeit good conduct time when testing confirms guilt. HB 2371

That said, I think everyone should tread lightly around this issue. There are cases where defective initial motions have been followed up with proper ones that led to exonerations. Any remedy for bad faith motions needs to be narrowly tailored to address the problem.

Here we go again.
Same guy. Same complaint. There doesn't seem to be away to stop him from filing the same thing over and over.
Anyone else deal with this?

I agree with JohnR about using caution. But maybe on the def's third attempt to invoke Ch. 64 cavalierly how about adopting some of the language from art. 11.07 writ opinions about abuse of the process by piecemeal, vexatious, and frivolous litigation? Ch. 64 is merely a conduit to seek writ relief so I don't know why you couldn't invoke the art. 11.07 law. See, e.g., Ex parte Carr, 511 sw2d 523