13Z-15
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
QrUbtNnL
AUSTIN TEXAS
JOE FRANK HORACE SR . , !E<
PETITIONER, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
No .09-14-00550-CR
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, FEB 06 2015
RESPONDENT.
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW UNDER RULE 68.
Abe! Aoosta, Clerk
Petitioner Comes incompliance for this Court of Criminal Appeals of
Texas to review the lower Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion after a
order by the same court to "Show Grounds For Relief In Order To Con
tinue The Appeal Process," was dismissed by the Appellate Court's
JUDGMENT.. And Memorandum Opinion of lack Jurisdiction to con-si
TOtflN
the merits of the appeal citing SLATON V. STATE, 9B1 S. bfeggRfg? cffl&AL APPEALS
CRIM.APP.1998) .
FEB 06 2Q:5
LEGAL ANAYliSIS
Abel Acosta, Clerk
Petitioner's filing after a trial court's denial of DNA testing war
rants Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas jurisdiction in an appeal
under Art.6k.05 of appeals.. Where "an appeal under this Chapter is
to a Court of Appeal in the same manner as an appeal of any other crim
inal matter.. The appeal is a direct appeal to the Court of Criminal
Appeals."
Petitioner timely filing of Petition For Discretionary Review Under
Rule 68 shall satisfy a review or consideration on the merits of the
trial court's denial:: of DNA testing or allow the appropriate Court of
Appeals to rule on the merits by the waiver of a untimely filing as the
sole purpose supporting the judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons asserted in this "Petition For Discretionary
Review Under Rule 68." by a Pro Se litigant, ask that this Court of Crim
inal Appeals GRANT RELIEF sought SUA SPONTE.
hPETITIONER-PRO SE
In The
Court ofAppeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-14-00550-CR
JOE FRANK HORACE SR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 95770
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 2, 2014, Joe Frank Horace Sr.'s notice of appeal was filed in
the trial court following the trial court's October 10, 2014 order denying Horace's
post-conviction motion requesting DNA testing associated with his 2008 burglary
conviction. We notified the parties that the notice of appeal did not appear to have
been timely filed. Horace filed a response but failed to establish that he filed a
notice of appeal within the time permitted for perfecting his appeal. See Tex. R.
App. P. 26.2(a), 26.3. We lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.
Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim.-App. 1998). Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack ofjurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on January 20, 2015
Opinion Delivered January 21, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.