Opinion issued August 4, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00531-CR
NO. 01-14-00532-CR
———————————
JAMES MAURICE GRIMES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 177th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 0643491 & 9400486
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant James Maurice Grimes was convicted for the offenses of first-
degree murder and aggravated kidnapping. Both convictions were affirmed on
appeal. See Grimes v. State, No. 01-96-01303-CR, 1998 WL 723741 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 1, 1998, pet. ref’d) (affirming murder conviction); Grimes
v. State, No. A14-93-01068-CR, 1994 WL 622036 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] Nov. 10, 1994, no pet.) (affirming aggravated kidnapping conviction).
Motions for post-conviction DNA testing were granted in both cases by the
trial court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. P. arts. 64.01(a-1), 64.03. Before the trial court
entered any findings as a result of the DNA testing, see id. art. 64.04, Grimes filed a
second motion, again requesting DNA testing in the same cases. The appellate
records do not reflect any separate rulings on these second requests for DNA testing.
See id. art. 64.03. However, the trial court did appoint attorney Patti Sedita to
represent Grimes “for the purpose of post-conviction DNA testing” in both cases.
Subsequently, but before the entry of any findings on the DNA testing, Grimes
filed pro se notices of appeal in both cases, purporting to appeal “the Trial Court’s
denial of appellant’s Motion [f]or DNA Testing, Article 64.01 C.C.P.”
The appellate records in both cases reflect that after Grimes’s notices of appeal
were filed, the trial court filed its finding, applicable to both cases, that the results of
the forensic DNA testing were “not favorable” to Grimes, and that he “failed to
establish a reasonable probability that, had the results of this forensic DNA testing
been available before or during the trial of the instant offense[s], the defendant would
not have been prosecuted or convicted.” See id. art. 64.04.
An appeal from a denial of a motion for DNA testing is treated “in the same
manner as an appeal of any other criminal matter.” Id. art. 64.05. Grimes purports to
2
appeal from the denial of DNA testing, but the records demonstrate that his initial
request for DNA testing was granted. There is no order denying the second motion.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there is no
appealable order denying DNA testing. See, e.g., Loya v. State, No. 13-15-00489-
CR, 2015 WL 8538766, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Dec. 10, 2015,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal challenging
failure to rule on motion for DNA testing for lack of jurisdiction).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3
James Maurice Grimes v. State
Combined Opinion