IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-01-409-CR
No. 10-01-410-CR
No. 10-01-411-CR
No. 10-01-412-CR
No. 10-01-413-CR
No. 10-01-414-CR
No. 10-01-415-CR
No. 10-01-416-CR
No. 10-01-417-CR
No. 10-01-418-CR
     WILLIAM A. McINTOSH,
                                                                              Appellant
     v.
     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                                              Appellee
From the 40th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 20084CR, 20085CR, 20086CR, 20087CR
20379CR, 20380CR, 20381CR, 20382CR, 20383CR and 20384CR
                                                                                                               Â
MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                                                                                               Â
      William A. McIntosh appeals from the trial courtâs denial of his motions for appointment of trial counsel in a series of DNA proceedings under chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We notified McIntosh in a published order dated December 11, 2002 that these are not appealable orders and that these appeals would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if supplemental clerkâs records containing orders adjudicating the merits of his motions for DNA testing were ânot filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before 5:00 p.m. on December 27, 2002.â McIntosh v. State, No. 01-409-CR, slip op. at 3-4, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 8879, at *4 (Tex. App.âWaco Dec. 11, 2002, order).
      We have not received a supplemental record containing an order on the merits in any of these appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.
                                                                   PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Davis,
      Justice Vance, and
      Justice Gray
Appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Opinion delivered and filed March 5, 2003
Do not publish
[CR25]
nts under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Bowie, 79 S.W.3d at 52; Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878. When reviewing matters committed to the trial court's discretion, we may not substitute our own judgment for the trial court's judgment. See Flores v. Fourth Ct. of Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38, 41 (Tex. 1989), modified on other grounds by National Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. 1993).
           The defendants essentially argue the merits of DurginÂs claim, relying on documents and information outside of the reports. After reviewing the reports, we agree with Durgin that the trial court was justified in finding that they discuss the standard of care, breach, and causation with sufficient specificity to fulfill the two required purposes: (1) inform the defendants of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called into question; and (2) provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit. Bowie, 79 S.W.3d at 52; Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 879.  Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants motion to dismiss.[1]
           Appellants issues are overruled, and the trial courtÂs order is affirmed.
Â
Â
Â
BILL VANCE
Justice
Â
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 5, 2008
[CV06]
Â
Â
[1] Our conclusion would be the same if we did a de novo review of the expert reports, as we suggested may be proper in Wooten v. Samlowski, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ n.1, 2008 WL 2133072 at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.ÂWaco May 21, 2008, pet. filed).