In Dinkins v. State, 84 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), the defendant filed a motion alleging that the evidence he sought to have tested had never been submitted for DNA testing, and that the means of testing available during his trial were outdated. 84 S.W.3d at 642. However, his affidavit did not provide a statement of fact in support of these claims. Id. Although Dinkins's expert submitted an affidavit that made general statements about the type of DNA testing available at the time of trial, he did not specifically address whether the DNA available at the time of trial was capable of providing probative results. Id. Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that "because appellant has failed to provide facts in support of his motion," the trial court did not err in denying Dinkins's motion for DNA testing. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the appellant had failed to meet his burden under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Article 64.01 because he did not provide any facts to support his motion for DNA testing as the statute requires. Dinkins, 84 S.W.3d at 642. Additionally, the trial court held the appellant failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that there was a reasonable probability that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted if the DNA results had been exculpatory. Id. at 643.