## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

__ _________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00161

- CR

_______ ____ ________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 0579930D
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. M e morandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### R USSELL 

### J AY 

### R EGER 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDU M OPINION
In 199 6, a jury convicted Russell Jay Reger of murder , and the trial court sentenced him to li fe in prison. We affirmed Reger ’s conviction on direct appeal. See Reger v. State, No. 02

- 96

- 00217

- CR (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 31, 1997, pet. ref ’ d) ( not designated for publica tion).
In 2005, Reger moved for postconviction for ensic DNA testing. See Reger v.
State , 222 S.W.3d 510, 512 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2007 , pet. r ef ’d)

. See generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc

. Ann. arts. 64.01

– .05

. The trial court denie d Reger ’ s mot ion , and we

a ff irmed t hat denial on appeal

. 1 S ee Reger , 222 S .W.3d at 515.
Now , R eger , proceeding pro se , appears to assert that we lack ed jur isdiction

over those appeals and has filed a “ [Second ] Am ended Notice of Appeal of Lacking
Final Judgment , ” attempting to appeal from the “ overruling by op eration of law ” of

“ Defendant R eger ’ s Sworn and Ver ified O ut

- of

- Time Motion for New Trial wi th
Om ni bus Motions in A r rest of Judg ment with Speedy Trial Violati on; Nu n c Pro Tunc, and Bill of Exce ption to Support in Plea o f Jurisdiction of Void Interlocutory Appellate Cause No s. 02

- 96

- 00 21 7

- CR and 02

- 06

- 00104

- CR

. ” In the criminal conte xt, our jurisdiction is gen erally li m ited t o cas es in which
the trial court has signed a judgment of con viction. McKown v. St ate , 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.

— F o rt Wo rth 1996 , no pet
. ) (per curiam)

. We do not have jurisdiction

1 We docketed this appeal under cause number 0 2

- 06

- 00 104

- CR.3

over matters related to postconviction relief 2 from an otherwis e fin al felony
conviction

. See At

er v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W. 2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim . App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); see a lso Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eight h Dist ., 9 10 S .W.2d 481 , 483 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 1995) (orig. proceeding). We th us n otified Reger of our c oncern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We w arned him that we could di s miss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless he or a n y party wanti ng to cont i n ue the appeal fi led a
response s howing grounds for con tinuing th e appeal

. See Tex. R. A pp. P. 43.2(f), 44.3. We have reviewe d “ Appellant R e g er ’ s R e sponse Showing Grounds for Continuing Appeal , ” as well as “ Appellant Reger ’ s Object ions to the Conspired
De n ials of Adequate, Meaningful, and Effective Access to t he Courts. ” Because neither show s grou nds for continuing this appeal, we di smiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction

. See Tex. R. A pp. P. 43.2 (f) /s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice
Do Not Publish Te x. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Del ivered : February 11, 2021

2 Chap ter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal P rocedure governs postconviction DNA testing a nd is “ a proce dur al vehicle fo r o btaining evidence ” to b e us e d in a later habeas proceeding. In re Garcia , 363 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Tex. App.

— A ustin 20 12, no pet.)

.