## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

____ _______________________

No. 02

- 21

- 0000 4

- CR

________________ ___________

On A ppeal from the 372nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 0708720R

Before Bassel, Womack, a nd Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### E X PARTE 

### E RIC 

### R ANDALL 

### H INKLE2 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Eric Randall Hinkle of aggrava ted sexual ass ault of a child,
and we affirmed the conviction. See Hinkle v. State ( Hinkle II ) , No. 0 2

- 11

- 00214

- CR, 2012 WL 4663064, at *1 (Te x. App.

— Fort Worth Oct. 4, 2012, pet. ref’d) (p er curiam) (mem. op. , not designated for publication ) (citing Hinkle v. State ( Hinkle I ) , No. 02

- 98

- 00542

- CR (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 3, 2000, pet . ref ’ d) ( not designated for publication) )

. Hinkle then file d a post conviction motion fo r forensic DNA testing un der C hapter 64 of the code of criminal procedure, claiming that DNA testing of physical evidence obtained from the victim would exonerate him. See Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01

. The trial court adopted the State ’ s propose d findings of fact and co nclusions of l aw, finding that no evidence existed to permit DNA testing, and rendered an order denying the motion

. See Hi nkle II , 2012 WL 4663064, at *1

. H inkle appealed , assert ing that the trial cour t ’ s order denying his
motion for DNA tes ting wa s void because his underlying conviction and judgment did not comply with A rticle 42.01, S ection 1(27) of t he code of criminal procedure, requiring him to register as a sex offen der

. Id. We dismissed that ap peal for lack of jurisdiction because his argument w as a collater a l attack on the validity of his underlying conviction

. Id. Appellant now attempts to a ppeal from the trial court’s
denial of a “ motion for evid entiary hearin g. ” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(e ). We do not have jurisdiction over matters related to postconvic t ion relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appea ls , 802 S.W.2d3 241, 243 (Tex. Crim

. App. 1991) (orig. pro ceeding); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 11.07; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of A p

peals for the Eighth
Dist ., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding ). We thus
notified Hinkle of our concern that we lack j urisdiction ov er this appeal. We warned
him that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response by February 8, 2021 , sho wing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex . R. App. P. 44.3. App ellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.
T he exclusive po stconviction remedy from a final felony conviction is through
a writ of ha beas corpus under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code o f Criminal Pro cedure.
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A s we stated in our letter to Hinkle , t he Court of Criminal Appeals, Austin, Texas, has jurisdiction over A rticle 11.07 postco nviction writs of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 ; see also Ater , 802 S.W.2d at
243 (stating that the Tex as Court of Criminal Appeals is “the only cou rt with jurisdiction in final post

- conviction felony proceedings”)

. Because we a re without jur isdiction to consider Hinkle ’ s appeal, we dismiss t his appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Te x. R. App. P. 43.2(f)

. Per Curiam
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)4 Delivered : April 8, 2021