Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 20, 2005.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-03-01242-CR
____________
VICTOR CHARLES ROGERS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 228th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 590,057
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant filed this pro se appeal from his attempt to obtain post-conviction DNA testing.[1] The record reflects that the trial court has neither granted nor denied such testing. Instead, while this appeal was abated, the trial court appointed new counsel to represent appellant and to file a motion for post-conviction DNA testing on his behalf.
Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment. Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.‑‑Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). The exceptions include: (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim.App.1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, Tex. R. App. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.‑‑Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.
Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment, we have no jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 20, 2005.
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Edelman, and Guzman.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] We abated this appeal because appellant=s first counsel failed to file a brief and because there were inadequacies in the record.