Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): present case is controlled by Jordan. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for the court of appeals to conduct a harm analysis. 1 . Before voir dire, appellant filed his election for the jury to assess punishment in the event of conviction and his sworn application for community supervision from the jury in which appellant swore that he had never before been convicted of a felony in the State of Texas or any other state. 2 . There is no evidence in the record regarding whether appellant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. 3 . See Milburn v. State, No. 07-04-0100-CR, 2005 WL 1412055, at *1, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 4679, *2 (Tex.App.-Amarillo June 16, 2005) (not designated for publication). 4 . 77 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). 5 . TexCode Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 4(e). 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a conviction is deemed final on the date of sentencing when there is no evidence that notice of appeal was filed (B) holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction (C) holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court (D) holding that prisoners notice of appeal deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court (E) holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court
Output (English): holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court