### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00056

- CR

Miles Wilson, Jr. , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 53612 , THE HONORABLE JOE CARROLL , JUDGE PRESIDING

O P I N I O N

Appellant Miles Wilson, Jr., pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, the offense

of murder in 2003 and sentence d to life in prison. In November 2021, Wi lson filed a “ motion for

the production of exculpatory and mitigating eviden ce. ” In his motion, h e reques ts that the trial

court order the State to produce “ the ph ysical and tangibl e ob jects in the possession of the

prosecuting attorneys or their agents which may be rel evant to the guilt or innocence of the

Defen dant , including b iol og ical samples fr om b oth the Defendant and the victim. ” Although

Wilson ’ s motion does not refer to any specific statute , i t appears to be based on Article 39.14 of

the Code of Criminal Pr ocedure , which generally allows a defendant to d iscover “ excul patory,

imp eachment, o r mit ig ating [ evidence ] in the possession , custo dy, or control of the s tate

. ” See

Tex. Co de Crim . Proc. art. 39.14(h)

. Article 39.14 also requires the S tate to disclose to th e

defendant the e xistence of any addition al evidence di sco vered “ any time befo re , dur ing, or after

trial. ” See id. art. 39.14 (k)

.2 On January 12, 2022, Wilson f iled a notice of appeal , seeking to appeal the trial

court ’ s ruling on his motion

. “ [I]n Texas, appeals by eithe r the Sta t e or the d efe ndant in a

cri minal case are permit te d o n ly when they are specifically auth o rized by stat ute. ” State ex

rel. Lykos v. Fine , 330 S.W.3d 9 04, 915 (Tex. Crim. App . 2011) ; see Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

art. 44.02 (addressing defendants ’ appeals in crimin al cases) ; Tex. R. A pp. P. 25.2(a)(2)

(authoriz ing a ppeals f

rom “ judgment of guilt or other appealable order ” )

. Stated another way, in

criminal c ases, the standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by

law, but whether the appeal i s auth oriz e d by law. Abbott v. S tate , 271 S.W.3d 6 94, 696

- 97 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008)

. T here is no statutory authorization for an appeal from the denial of a mo tion

to compel discovery under A rticle 39.14

. 1 S ee Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim.

App. 20 1 4 ) ( “ Jurisd iction must be expre ssly gi v en t o the courts of appeal s in a st atute. ” )

.

Accordingl y , we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex

. R. Ap p.

P. 42.3( a )

.

1 In hi s noti ce of appeal, Wil son states that he is a ppealing under Articl e 64.05
, which permits an appeal from an order denying post

- conviction D NA t e sting

. S ee Tex. Code Crim. P roc. art. 6 4.05

. Wilson ’ s motion does not seek forensic DNA test ing but , in s te ad, see ks to obtain evidence outs ide the scope of Cha pter 64 ; consequently, Wilson cannot rely on Chapter 64 as a basis for appellate jurisdic ti o n

. Se e In re Garcia
, 363 S.W .3d 819, 822 ( Tex. App.

— Austin 201 2, no pet. ) ( di sm issing appeal for wa nt of jurisdiction and explaining that Chapter 64 does not confer j uris diction on appellate court s “ to review, under the guise of a DNA testing appeal, any t hing beyond the scope of [ Cha pter 64] ” )

.3 ________ _______________________________ ___ Chari L. Kelly , Jus tice

Before Chief Jus ti ce Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Dismissed for Want of J urisdict ion

Filed: March 2 5 , 202 2

P ublish