ISMAEL PADILLA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

DISMISS; Opinion issued April 21, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-00308-CR
............................
ISMAEL PADILLA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F82-90756-RP
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Francis and Fillmore
        Ismael Padilla filed a notice of appeal from the State's response to his request for post- conviction DNA testing. The information before the Court reflects that appellant's motion for post- conviction DNA testing was denied on August 28, 2006. Nothing in the Court's records reflects an appeal was taken from that order.   See Footnote 1  Rather, appellant's notice of appeal indicates he is challenging the State's response that there was no material to test.
        As a general rule, an appellate court may consider appeals by criminal defendants only after conviction. Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). A court of appeals has no jurisdiction over an appeal absent a written judgment or order. See Nikrasch v. State, 698 S.W.2d 443, 450 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1985, no pet.).
        In this case, appellant's February 25, 2010 notice of appeal is untimely as to the trial court's August 28, 2006 order denying the motion for post-conviction DNA testing. See Welsh v. State, 108 S.W.3d 921, 922-23 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (notice of appeal from order denying DNA testing due thirty days after order signed). Further, the State's response to appellant's motion for DNA testing is not an order, and nothing in the documents before the Court shows the trial court ruled on any motion for post-conviction DNA testing after August 28, 2006. Accordingly, we conclude we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.
        We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
                                                          
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
100308F.U05
 
Footnote 1 Our records do show that appellant previously filed three pro se petitions for writ of mandamus involving this same trial court number. They were docketed as: 05-04-01721-CV, In re Ismael H. Padilla; 05-05-00402-CV, In re Ismael H. Padilla; and 05-05-00744-CV, In re Ismael H. Padilla. Mandamus relief was denied in each case.